Most Intern Architects register for all four ExAC sections in a single cycle. Most should. This post makes the case for that default, names the narrow set of situations where splitting is a legitimate call, and gives you a clear framework to decide without overthinking it. There is nothing motivational in here: just an honest look at the trade-offs and where the reasoning tends to go wrong.
| Sections in scope | All four: Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 |
|---|---|
| Typical exam window | One or two consecutive days per cycle |
| Study timeline (all four) | 10 to 14 weeks, 8 to 12 hrs/week |
| Cost of splitting | Registration fee paid twice; travel, twice |
| Valid reason to split | Parental leave, documented accommodation, or retaking a failed section |
| Verdict for most candidates | Write all four together |
This post is for Intern Architects deciding whether to register for all four ExAC sections in a single cycle or spread them across two. It is also for candidates who have already committed to splitting and want to know how to make the most of it.
If you have already failed a section and are retaking only that one, this post is not for you. That is the exam system working as designed: your passes carry forward, you register only for what you need to retake, and the strategic question about splitting does not apply.
The post assumes you are sitting the ExAC for the first time (or close to it) and that writing in English. Most of the reading list is available in French as well, including CHOP and the National Building Code, and the strategy argument is the same in either language.
The ExAC is offered in one or two registration cycles per year, depending on your provincial association. Writing in one sitting means registering for all four sections (Section 1 through Section 4) in the same cycle and sitting the exam within the same delivery window, typically on consecutive days.
Passing sections in a given cycle permanently removes them from future registrations. There is no time limit on completing the full ExAC; you can pass two sections this cycle and two next cycle and both sets of passes count. The exam does not expire.
Splitting, in the context of this post, means intentionally registering for fewer than four sections in a given cycle and deferring the others. Some candidates do this after failing one or two sections; others do it by design before their first attempt. The question here is whether the by-design split is worth it.
The default for most working Intern Architects is to register for all four sections in one cycle, and the default is correct. Here is the argument in concrete terms.
Preparing for all four sections requires roughly 10 to 14 weeks of focused study. Splitting into two cycles means two separate ramp-ups: two periods of reading, two periods of exam pressure, two periods where your social life and work schedule take a hit. The total study hours do not halve. If anything they increase, because you lose momentum between cycles and spend time re-familiarising yourself with references you had already started. CHOP is a primary reference for both Section 1 and Section 4. Reading it once for both sections is faster than reading it for Section 1 now and refreshing it for Section 4 twelve months later.
ExAC registration fees are not trivial. Writing all four sections in one cycle means one fee. If your firm reimburses ExAC registration costs, splitting means two reimbursement requests across two budget years. Check the employer reimbursement guide if you are not sure what your firm covers before you decide.
Exam week costs you sleep, concentration, and calendar space. One disruption window is better than two. Candidates who pass all four sections together close the ExAC chapter. Candidates who split extend it over a second year of their practice.
The NBC 2020 fire separation and spatial separation content in Section 2 overlaps with the building science content in Section 3. The CHOP project management content in Section 1 connects directly to the construction administration content in Section 4. Studying all four sections together lets those connections build as you read. Splitting into separate years breaks the reinforcement loop. You do not get that time back.
There are situations where splitting is the right call. They are specific, and none of them are "I am nervous about Section 2."
Outside these situations, the instinct to split is almost always exam anxiety about Section 2 or Section 4, wearing the clothes of strategic thinking. Candidates who split to avoid Section 2 still have to study Section 2 eventually. The National Building Code does not become easier with twelve months between attempts. Splitting does not reduce the reading list; it extends the timeline you have to live with it.
Before you register, compare your situation against both columns of this table. If your reason to split does not appear in the right column, write all four.
| Criterion | Write all four together | Split the sections |
|---|---|---|
| Registration cost | One fee, one cycle | Two fees across two cycles |
| Study ramp-up | One focused window of 10 to 14 weeks | Two ramp-ups; more total hours |
| Reading list overlap | Reinforces itself across sections | Lost between cycles; re-reading required |
| Work disruption | One window | Two windows, two years |
| Best fit | Any candidate with 8 or more hrs/week for 10 to 14 weeks | Parental leave, documented accommodation, post-fail retake |
| Poor fit | No candidate with a genuine study runway | Candidates who are anxious about one section |
The single-question version of this framework: can you commit to eight to twelve hours per week for ten to fourteen weeks? If yes, write all four. If no, ask why not. If the reason is structural (parental leave, an accommodation), split. If the reason is anxiety or a busy quarter at work, find the ten weeks and write all four.
Even when splitting is legitimate, candidates misuse it in predictable ways. These are the three failure modes to watch for.
If you are already registered for fewer than four sections in the current cycle, make the most of it.
Whichever path you take, two tools matter more than anything else.
Practice questions expose your gaps in Week 3 instead of Week 11, whether you are writing two sections or four. The Examitect question bank covers all four sections with scenario-based questions and answer explanations that point back to the source chapter. Try a free sample before you commit. If you are writing a subset of sections, filter to those sections only and use the extra time to build volume rather than breadth.
A personalised schedule that accounts for how many sections you are writing and how many hours per week you have available is worth the half-hour it takes to set up. The Examitect study schedule tool generates a week-by-week plan for any combination of sections and weekly hour budgets. If you are writing all four, the 3-month study plan on this site covers the full sequence with weekly reading assignments and practice-question targets, so you have a framework to start from on day one.
Yes, most working Intern Architects should write all four sections in one cycle. Writing all four at once concentrates the study runway into a single period, avoids paying registration fees twice, and lets the overlapping reading material reinforce itself across sections. The case for splitting is genuine only for candidates returning from parental leave, those with a documented learning accommodation, or those retaking a section they have already failed.
Writing all four sections in one sitting means registering for Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the same cycle and sitting them within the same exam window, typically on consecutive days. Passing some sections in a given cycle removes them from future registrations permanently. Splitting means intentionally registering for fewer than four sections and deferring the rest to a later cycle.
Splitting effectively doubles the registration cost, since you pay the registration fee for two separate cycles rather than one. If your firm reimburses ExAC fees, splitting means a second reimbursement request and a second conversation about calendar support. Check your firm's policy before you register; some firms cap reimbursement to a single attempt or a single calendar year.
Yes, candidates who split can and do pass the ExAC. Splitting does not make individual sections easier or harder. The risk is that splitting creates two separate study ramp-ups, which typically means more total preparation hours and a second year under exam pressure, not less. The reading list does not shrink when you spread it across two cycles.
If splitting is genuinely necessary, pair sections that share references. Section 1 and Section 3 both draw heavily on CHOP and CHING. Section 2 and Section 4 both rely on CHOP and construction-document material. Pairing sections that share references reduces the time you spend re-reading the same sources in separate cycles. Avoid pairing by section number alone.
Harder in total volume, yes, but not proportionally harder in preparation hours. Candidates who write all four sections prepare for roughly 10 to 14 weeks. Candidates who split often end up with more total study hours across two cycles because they lose momentum between cycles and spend time re-orientating to references they had already started. The reading list does not shrink when you split.
You retake only the section you failed at the next exam cycle. Your passes carry forward permanently; there is no need to re-sit the sections you passed. Most candidates who fail one section on their first attempt pass it on retake because the diagnostic feedback narrows the study target to a specific set of categories.
Yes, parental leave is one of the few situations where splitting is a genuinely practical choice. If you have a newborn and an honest ceiling of six to eight study hours per week, the 10-to-14-week study timeline for all four sections does not fit. Write the two sections you are most prepared for and defer the others to your next available cycle rather than rushing a preparation that does not match your life.
Reimbursement policies vary by firm. Some firms reimburse the registration fee per sitting, others set a per-year or per-registration cap, and some require candidates to attempt all sections in a single cycle. Ask your principal before you register, confirm coverage in writing, and keep receipts. The employer reimbursement guide on this site has a request template you can adapt.
Plan for 10 to 14 weeks at eight to twelve hours per week for all four sections. Candidates with strong construction administration experience can prepare in 10 weeks at the low end of that range. Candidates who have not yet administered a construction contract should plan closer to 14 weeks. A detailed week-by-week plan for the 12-week version is available in the 3-month ExAC study plan on this site.
The most common mistake is splitting and then not studying more hours in the second cycle than they would have in a single-cycle attempt. Splitting does not create extra time; it creates a second deadline twelve months away, which makes it easy to procrastinate. Candidates who split and coast often end up with more total study hours spread over two years, not a lighter load.
No. Anxiety about Section 2 is not a valid reason to split. Candidates who split to avoid Section 2 still have to study Section 2 eventually, and the National Building Code does not become easier with an extra six months between attempts. If Section 2 is your weak area, weight your preparation toward code content within a single cycle rather than deferring the problem to a future year.
Yes. The primary references for deferred sections, most commonly CHOP for Sections 1 and 4 and CHING for Section 3, need at least a refresh pass before your second cycle. Candidates who defer sections often underestimate how much context fades over six to twelve months, especially on CCDC 2 contract provisions and NBC clauses they had just started to internalize.