ARB’s Proposed Changes to the Prescribed Examination: What You Need to Know

On 5 August 2026, the Architects Registration Board (ARB) published detailed proposals for a revised Prescribed Examination. The proposals are now out for consultation until 16 September 2026.

The consultation is seeking feedback on the proposed Registration Rules, Eligibility Guidance and Prescribed Examination Policy Scheme.

So, what exactly is changing, what will remain the same, and what could these proposals mean for anyone considering this route to registration?

Why Is the ARB Changing the Prescribed Examination?

The current Prescribed Examination reflects the existing Part 1 and Part 2 criteria for architectural education. However, the ARB is moving towards an outcomes-based framework for initial education and training, where candidates will be assessed against the ARB’s Academic Outcomes rather than the historic qualification structure.

The Prescribed Examination has not yet caught up with this shift.

The proposed reforms are therefore intended to bring the examination into line with the ARB’s new education and registration framework. The ARB’s stated aim is to improve access to the Register for competent professionals, while simplifying the process and removing what it describes as unintended complexity and barriers.

What is the Prescribed Examination for?

The Prescribed Examination provides an alternative route to registration for people who do not hold ARB-prescribed qualifications but believe they have developed an equivalent standard of knowledge, understanding and competence.

This could have been achieved through:

• Other qualifications

• Professional experience

• A combination of qualifications and experience

• Other relevant forms of learning and development

The examination sits under Section 4 of the Architects Act 1997, which allows the ARB to accept a standard of competence it considers equivalent to someone who has completed the prescribed qualifications and practical experience, and to require an examination to test that competence.

Importantly, the ARB is clear that the Prescribed Examination is not intended to be the principal route to registration.

Instead, it is an alternative route for people who may otherwise struggle to demonstrate that they have met the required Academic Outcomes.

The revised examination would replace the current Part 2 Prescribed Examination and would be aligned with the ARB’s new education and registration framework.

What Is Actually Being Proposed?

The revised examination would assess applicants against the Academic Outcomes only.

This is an important distinction: the examination is about academic competence rather than the Practice Outcomes.

To be eligible, applicants would need to hold a Level 7 qualification, equivalent to Master's degree level, in architecture or a relevant discipline, rather than specifically needing an ARB-prescribed qualification.

The proposed examination would then be divided into three stages:

1. Application

2. Review

3. Online Interview

The examination would continue to be delivered by the ARB with appointed examiners.

What Would Stay the Same?

Although there are significant proposed changes, several aspects of the existing process would remain recognisable.

The revised examination would continue to include:

• Assessment against defined outcomes

• A self-assessment

• A portfolio of evidence

• An online interview

• Written feedback where an applicant is unsuccessful

However, the way these elements are structured and assessed would change considerably.

What Would Change?

The ARB is proposing a number of changes to the current examination.

These include:

1. A Level 7 qualification requirement

Applicants would need to hold a qualification equivalent to UK Level 7.

2. Relevant disciplines would be accepted

Applicants would no longer necessarily need a qualification specifically in architecture.

Qualifications in another relevant discipline could potentially provide a route into the examination.

3. A three-stage process

The examination would be divided into:

Application → Review → Interview

Applicants would need to successfully complete each stage before progressing to the next.

4. Smaller examiner panels

Panels would move from three examiners to two examiners.

5. Removal of referrals and handbacks

The proposals would remove referrals to lead examiners and handbacks between stages.

6. Recorded interviews

Interviews would be recorded for quality assurance purposes.

7. Staged fees

Applicants would pay fees based on the stages they actually progress to, rather than paying for the entire process upfront.

The ARB's reasoning is that these changes could widen access for applicants whose Level 7 qualification is not specifically in architecture, while also avoiding applicants having to pay for stages they do not reach.

The staged structure could also provide clearer decision points and feedback throughout the process.

Who Could Be Eligible?

Eligibility is likely to be one of the most important practical aspects of the proposed changes.

Applicants would need to demonstrate either:

• Successful completion of a Level 7 qualification in architecture or a relevant discipline, or

• Substantial professional experience demonstrating engagement with architectural practice or the design and procurement of the built environment.

Importantly, qualifications would not need to be ARB-prescribed.

The draft guidance indicates that these could include:

• Master's degrees

• Postgraduate diplomas

• Professional qualifications

• Other advanced qualifications

These could have been awarded either in the UK or internationally.

For qualifications obtained outside the UK, the ARB would require a Statement of Comparability from UK ENIC.

What Counts as a Relevant Discipline?

The proposals also broaden the potential range of academic backgrounds that could be considered relevant.

The ARB states that architecture itself would normally be regarded as relevant, while other related disciplines may also be considered where the applicant can demonstrate substantial engagement with matters relevant to architecture or the built environment.

The draft guidance gives examples including:

• Architectural technology

• Urban design

• Landscape architecture

• Interior architecture

• Civil or structural engineering

• Construction management

• Planning

This list is non-exhaustive.

However, it is important to understand that simply having a qualification in one of these disciplines would not automatically establish eligibility. The qualification is a starting point. Applicants would still need to demonstrate that they have the appropriate background and experience to have a realistic prospect of successfully demonstrating the Academic Outcomes through the examination.

English Language and Reasonable Adjustments

There are also baseline requirements relating to English language.

Applicants must be capable of communicating effectively in English for the purposes of the examination. Applicants from non-English-speaking countries would need to demonstrate C1 CEFR level.

The ARB also confirms its commitment to equality and reasonable adjustments, with applicants able to request adjustments in advance in accordance with its published policy.

Eligibility Doesn't Mean You've Already Met the Outcomes

One particularly important point in the draft guidance is the distinction between eligibility and demonstrating competence.

The eligibility stage is not intended to assess whether an applicant has already demonstrated the Academic Outcomes. Instead, it asks whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of successfully demonstrating those Outcomes through the Review and Interview stages.

The actual assessment of the Academic Outcomes happens later. This distinction is important because passing the Application stage does not mean that the applicant has passed any of the Academic Outcomes.

The Three Stages of the Proposed Examination

The proposed structure introduces a much more clearly staged approach.

Stage 1: Application

The first stage determines whether an applicant meets the published eligibility requirements.

The purpose is essentially to establish whether there is a realistic prospect that the applicant could demonstrate the Academic Outcomes later in the process. It is not an assessment of whether those Outcomes have already been met.

If the eligibility requirements are satisfied, the applicant can proceed to the Review stage. If they are not, the applicant cannot continue.

Stage 2: Review

The Review stage is the principal evidence-gathering stage of the examination.

Applicants would submit two key components:

1. A self-assessment

The self-assessment requires applicants to explain how they have demonstrated each of the Academic Outcomes.

This means identifying the evidence supporting each Outcome and explaining how that evidence demonstrates the required knowledge, understanding, skills or behaviours.

The focus is very much on the applicant's own contribution. Rather than simply describing a project they were involved in, applicants need to explain their own role, learning, development and contribution.

2. A portfolio of supporting evidence

The portfolio then supports the self-assessment.

Evidence could come from a wide range of sources, including:

• Academic study

• Professional practice

• Independent learning

• Research

• Publications

• Technical reports

• Design projects

• Built work

• Professional activities

• Other relevant experience

Importantly, applicants do not need separate evidence for every single Outcome.

One piece of evidence could demonstrate several Outcomes.

The emphasis is on the quality, relevance and breadth of evidence, rather than simply submitting a large volume of material.

Examiners are specifically directed to assess the strength of the evidence rather than how much evidence has been submitted. They will consider:

• How well the evidence demonstrates the Outcomes

• Its relevance and quality

• How clearly the applicant has explained the connection

• Whether the overall evidence demonstrates an equivalent standard of competence

Where further clarification is needed, this can then be explored during the Interview. If sufficient evidence is provided, the applicant progresses to the Interview stage. If it isn't, the process stops at Review.

Stage 3: The Online Interview

The final stage is an online interview.

The Interview provides applicants with an opportunity to explain and contextualise the evidence presented in their self-assessment and portfolio. It also allows examiners to explore areas where further clarification is required.

The Interview is not a completely separate test. Instead, the Review and Interview stages are considered together when examiners make their final decision.

During the Interview, examiners may:

• Ask applicants to explain submitted evidence

• Test the authenticity of evidence

• Explore how particular Outcomes have been demonstrated

• Ask about an individual's role within collaborative work

• Discuss professional, ethical or practice-based scenarios

• Explore areas where further evidence or context is required

It is likely that particular attention will be given to Outcomes that were less comprehensively evidenced during the Review stage.

Following the Interview, examiners decide whether the applicant has demonstrated the Academic Outcomes and the required overall standard of competence.

If successful, the applicant is informed.If unsuccessful, they receive feedback identifying the Outcomes that were not sufficiently demonstrated.

What Happens If You Don't Pass?

The proposals also include arrangements for resits.

If an applicant is unsuccessful at either Review or Interview, they would receive feedback identifying what was not sufficiently demonstrated.

They can then make a further attempt at that stage without submitting an entirely new application, provided they remain within the permitted completion period.

However, a resit is not simply an opportunity to submit exactly the same material again.

Applicants would be expected to address the issues identified in the feedback. A further fee would also be payable for each attempt.

Authenticity and Your Own Contribution

The proposals place significant emphasis on authenticity.

All evidence and statements submitted must be accurate and truthful. This is particularly important when using evidence from collaborative or team projects.

Applicants must clearly identify:

• Their own role

• Their own contribution

• What they personally did or learned

They must not present the work or ideas of others as their own.

The ARB may undertake checks to verify submitted evidence. Where it reasonably believes that evidence has been falsified, plagiarised or dishonestly submitted, it can reject the application, determine that the applicant has not passed, or take other appropriate action.

This is an important reminder for anyone preparing a portfolio and something that will sound very familiar to anyone who has been through Part 3 and had to demonstrate their own professional experience through PEDRs and other evidence.

Can You Appeal an Unsuccessful Decision?

The proposed rules do not provide a full right of appeal against the academic or professional judgment of examiners.

Instead, applicants would have access to a procedural review.

The grounds for this are deliberately narrow and include:

• Material procedural impropriety

• Manifest unfairness

• A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable panel of examiners could have reached it

Simply disagreeing with an examiner's judgment, for example, believing that you did demonstrate an Outcomem would not, by itself, be sufficient grounds.

Requests would need to be made within 28 days of the decision and set out the grounds being relied upon, together with any supporting evidence. Where a review identifies a material defect, the case could be referred back for further examination.

The Registrar would also have the ability to filter requests and reject those where there is no reasonable prospect of a different decision, where the request simply challenges academic or professional judgment, or where it amounts to an abuse of process.

What Could the Examination Look Like in the Future?

The proposed rules also give the ARB relatively broad powers over how a Prescribed Examination can be delivered.

Beyond the proposed Application, Review and Interview structure, the rules allow for:

• Written assessment

• In-person assessment

• Online assessment

• Verification of authenticity or authorship

• Other assessment methods approved by the ARB

This gives the ARB some flexibility to adjust the mechanics of the examination in the future without necessarily needing to amend the underlying rules again.

What Does This Mean for You?

So, what does all of this mean depending on where you are in your architectural career?

If you're a Part 3 candidate or qualified architect on the standard UK route:

The consultation does not change your own registration pathway. However, it is worth understanding as part of the ARB's wider reform agenda. It is also the type of regulatory development that could be relevant to discuss in a Part 3 interview, particularly when demonstrating awareness of current professional and regulatory issues.

If you have overseas or non-recognised qualifications

This could be particularly relevant. The proposed Level 7 threshold and the potential acceptance of relevant disciplines beyond architecture could create a route for people who may not previously have been eligible.

However, eligibility is only the first step. Applicants would still need to develop a strong evidence base demonstrating the Academic Outcomes.

If you're considering the current Prescribed Examination

If you're currently considering the existing examination or thinking about when to apply, this is something to keep a close eye on.

The ARB expects to introduce the revised examination in spring 2027, subject to the outcome of the consultation and Board approval. Before launch, the ARB also plans to develop supporting guidance, train examiners and publish further operational detail.

For now, these proposals are not final. This is a live consultation, rather than a confirmed set of rules.

If you mentor or examine candidates

The changes are also worth understanding if you support people going through non-standard routes to registration.

The staged process, pass-to-progress model and staged fees could all affect how candidates assess whether this route is appropriate for them.

The Consultation: Have Your Say

The consultation opened on 5 August 2026 and closes on 16 September 2026.

The ARB is inviting views on areas including:

• Eligibility requirements

• The format and stages of the examination

• The evidence applicants would need to provide

• Feedback and resit arrangements

• Proposed amendments to the Registration Rules

• Supporting guidance

• Equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility impacts

Importantly, the consultation is open to anyone, not just people who are directly affected by the Prescribed Examination.

If you have an interest in architectural education, registration or professional regulation, this is an opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

Key Takeaways

The proposed reforms represent another significant part of the ARB's wider move towards an outcomes-based approach to architectural education and registration.

The key points to remember are:

1. The ARB has proposed a revised Prescribed Examination to replace the current examination and align it with its new outcomes-based framework.

2. The examination would assess the Academic Outcomes only, rather than the Practice Outcomes.

3. Applicants would need a Level 7 qualification in architecture or a relevant discipline, or potentially substantial professional experience meeting the proposed eligibility requirements.

4. The examination would have three stages: Application, Review and Interview.

5. The Review stage would focus heavily on the applicant's self-assessment and portfolio of evidence.

6. Applicants would need to demonstrate their own contribution, particularly where evidence comes from collaborative work.

7. Panels would move from three examiners to two, and interviews would be recorded for quality-assurance purposes.

8. Fees would be staged, meaning applicants would only pay for the stages they progress to.

9. There would be a narrow procedural review process, rather than a full right of appeal against examiner judgment.

10. The revised examination is currently expected to launch in spring 2027, subject to consultation and Board approval.

For anyone following the ARB's reforms, this is another important development to keep on your radar.

And if you're currently working towards registration, mentoring candidates, or simply trying to keep up with the changing regulatory landscape, understanding these reforms now will put you in a much stronger position as the new framework develops.