Appraisers' Free Forum

1st off I'm in total agreement with Edd

If and When someone can decide to introduce new and rewarding class material CEU's are a waste, haven't taken a class of different total material in over 20 years. It's repeted way to often and there isn't sufficient changes in material to warrant the demand for CEU's in the short amount of time required. The States take advantage of the requirement only to capture "pork barrel" excess, ifn anyone can find out where all those funds go.......

Testing......haaa, just because you can pass a Test, doesn't mean you actually know any more - some folk are good Testers, others may strugle but have a greater knowledge overall - how would a Test note the difference

It's almost like saying AVM's provide quality information 100% of the time

There may be so many quality "Test Takers", that working against the rules of mankind has left it's mark, worldwide

The number of college gradjiates will soon reach the number of active attorneys, after all aren't we really Purchasing the sheepskin Does anyone know the number of College flunkies, Senior year

I voted "no." But, that does not mean that I am entirely against the idea... just that I would need to add some qualifiers in order to vote "yes." In other words, I am against testing for CE credit under the current paradigm.

What I would support is allowing a wider variety of classwork to qualify for CE. So, for example, an appraiser who feels weak on business communication or writing, should be able to make an improvement by taking coursework on that subject an applying it to CE. Of course, that will never happen under the present regime... the state boards are too closely linked with CE providers.

Much of the CE being offered today is just plain garbage. Not only is the information useless... a lot of it is not even correct! I have had to suffer through numerous courses where the instructor knew less than myself. I have had to suffer through other courses where the instructor had little or no field experience and on more than a few occasions was teaching because of the inability to do. Even when I have found good instructors (and there are many) the individual bias of that person's experience often translates to the classroom.

CE is nothing more than a necessary evil. Testing for it would add insult to injury.

Corporate Lackey wrote:When I take a course/seminar/class, whatever, I want to freaking LEARN something!!!!! When I have taught, it seems that only a minority are actually there to learn, or even want to learn as part of obtaining some hours on their rear.

I agree. The last USPAP class I took discussed USPAP for less than an hour. I wouldn't have too much of a problem if I was just picking a class to get my required hours. I've even taken a couple of CE classes that I knew wouldn't have much substance. When I take a USPAP class I expect to learn USPAP. IT'S FREEKING IMPORTANT FOR ME TO LEARN USPAP IN MY USPAP UPDATE CLASS!!!!

If tests were required, some of the teachers would be forced to stay on topic. The sad thing is that my CE choices are limited without travel and an overnight hotel stay.

I think it is interesting that if I take an online course that I must pass a test at the end to get credit but if I sit for three days in a class and never ask any questions or pay attention I still pass the course.

In my own case I have always felt that if I am paying my money to take a course I want to learn everything I can from the course.

When I take a course I ask many questions but sometimes I sit next to someone who is drawing pictures for the whole three days and never asks any questions or even appears interested in what is being taught.

For me I don't understand why anyone would spend a few hundred dollars on a course and yet not pay attention to what's going on.

I think a test at the end would be a good idea.

I also find many appraisers who really don't seem to know what's going on the the business these day's.

I spoke with an appraiser the other day and I asked this person if they were already filling out the 1004 MC form and they did even know what I was talking about.

When I explained to them what the form was and told them about the April 1 date they appeared to be in shock!

Just my opinion Jim Hill

Testing does two things: It determines how much each individual can regurgitate; and it tells the supervisory people whether the instructor did a reasonable job.

I too have sat in classes where I knew more than the instructor about certain aspects of appraisal--and recently, too!
Just as recently, I have been in classes where the guy at the next table was futzing with his cellphone texting all day.

The instructor got smarter, because he picked up a couple of things from me. I learned a thing or two from him that I didn't know. The dumbass text-message generator didn't learn a damn thing from either one of us. Screw him.

In my opinion, all classes should be tested. But you should be able to challenge the test at a reduced price, and get out of having to waste a day in class that you don't need. I'd put limitations on it, such as not allowing you to challenge the same course within two years of a prior challenge.

But in general, I vote "Yes" for tests at CE.

Jim Plante wrote:The dumbass text-message generator didn't learn a damn thing from either one of us. Screw him.

I've seen a lot of that kind of behavior, especially from real estate agents... folks who think their time is more valuable than everyone else's and want to prove how busy they are. Fortunately, they are in the minority. Most of the appraisers I have seen in class were well-behaved... too well behaved, IMHO... few of them ever challenge anything; well, what do you expect? They got their primary education in government schools.

I have only had one class I can think of that was completely worthless. It was called something like Appraising Drug Impacted Properties... but, wasn't about appraising at all; just a couple of KC cops four-hour, non-stop commercial for drug laws. I didn't learn a single thing.

In all other cases, the classes I've taken have been somewhat useful. The emphasis, however, is on "somewhat." I'll stand by my statement that the regulators are much too close to the educators. They seem to have a predetermination to help the appraisal schools succeed, rather than to get the best possible education out there. I am disgusted with the choices currently available, for the most part, and if testing was mandated under the current paradigm, I might consider turning in my license as a protest (I'm close enough to retirement to make that kind of statement).

In Tennessee, the board has one member from the educational community, usually a professor and PhD from one of the colleges. He vets every single course offering proffered for approval. Often, he does not approve offerings because they fail to provide meaningful material w/r/t appraisal issues. The board usually accepts this member's recommendations; I've never seen them fail to do so.

So there's at least one state in which the appraisal schools aren't tied to the board and vice-versa.

I'm getting to the point now that when I attend a class, I usually learn only one or two things I didn't know, or learn how to do one thing better. In my recent classes, the instructor made the mistake of bringing up statistics. He shouldn't have done that, because there were gaps in his education. I filled a couple of them for him. (F'rinstance, don't go deleting data points just because they mess up your regression line. Find the reason why outliers are outliers, and document that reason for later reference.)