Appraisal Institue vs. McKissock Procdures

[Lost Cause]

In my experience, McKissock courses are good, and AI classes are best. I recommend AI, but will not be wasting your time if you "settle" for McKissock.

 

[Bob Ipock]

The NAR did a study some years ago regarding education. The two most important issues with students were:

1) Cost
2) Distance to the class

I am no an AI basher...but I have to see some reasons they are the best.

1) The material is the same. It all has to be approved by the AQB and the state boards.

It would seem to me that the instructor would have to be the factor as it can't be the quality of the material

2) The instructors may be teaching for the AI this week and next month for their own school. This year the instructor joined the AI. Does that mean he is automatically a better instructor than he was last year? I would say no.
Every professor at UNC Chapel Hill is not a great instructor. Every AI instructor is not a great instructor. You can put a AI badge on a poor instructor and it won't make him any better than he was before he was anointed.

The AI is not the favorite of every appraiser, not even most appraisers. They are not the leading provider of appraisal classes...and not because they don't have good material or good instructors. Here in NC they might offer some CE classes in 2-3 cities while other schools may offer classes in 10-15 cities. The other factor is the cost. The typical appraiser will not pay more for a reasonable substitute. If they are looking for pre-certification or CE courses...MOST will choose the less expensive school...that is a fact and is easily proved. If the goal is to pass the national license exam or to accumulate required CE.........the goal will be accomplished with the AI or with Billy-Jim's Appraisal School. A "consensus" of a dozen people is not very compelling. I have taught at least 1,000 students and they did not come to me because I was greater, smarter or more prestigious....but because I was CLOSE and had LOWER FEES. Principle of substitution folks, deny it if you like.

I always hear AI education is better.....but no one ever has a logical reason...just because. I have taken at least 6 AI classes, some were good and were were not....one was horrible.

This is one of those myths that gets better and better the more times it is told......regardless of the truth or validity. Blondes have more fun, Fords are better than Chevrolets, minorities are always inferior to WASPs, breaking a mirror is seven years of bad luck, all Democrats are liberal, socialists who smoke dope. Tell a myth enough times and it becomes the truth.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I've been taking classes since I believe about 1988 or so. I've taken courses for NAIFA, AIREA, SREA, AI, the Columbia Society (local organization), McKissock, and a local proprietary school, plus additional organizations for my salesperson's license. Hands down the best courses were through AI and their predecessors (AIREA and SREA). It wasn't just the teachers, it was the course format. The qualifying courses are taught as if they are college courses, the material tends to be taught in greater detail and to a greater extent, and the tests are difficult because one must know the material inside and out. If you want to see the difference firsthand, compare the failure rates on state exams to where the students took their education.

Generally my CE is taken through AI, simply because my education has been geared toward the commercial end for the past several cycles. They have courses that others don't have, and they are very informative.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

I've been taking classes since I believe about 1988 or so. I've taken courses for NAIFA, AIREA, SREA, AI, the Columbia Society (local organization), McKissock, and a local proprietary school, plus additional organizations for my salesperson's license. Hands down the best courses were through AI and their predecessors (AIREA and SREA). It wasn't just the teachers, it was the course format. The qualifying courses are taught as if they are college courses, the material tends to be taught in greater detail and to a greater extent, and the tests are difficult because one must know the material inside and out. If you want to see the difference firsthand, compare the failure rates on state exams to where the students took their education.

Generally my CE is taken through AI, simply because my education has been geared toward the commercial end for the past several cycles. They have courses that others don't have, and they are very informative.

David .. Five years ago I would have completely agreed with you in your comments ... the last three offerings I have taken from AI have been less than stellar .. in fact they have been extremely disappointing.
They had a huge advantage in quality that, in my experience, has eroded over the past several years.
I will continue to give them opportunities to be my educational provider, but a couple more like the last three, and I will believe the quality has completely eroded and I will seek alternative quality education.

PS ... several of my colleagues, designated and not, have voiced the same experiences as I have had ... sad but all good things come to an end .. perhaps its time for gentrification and regeneration of the materials and teachers. Some remain among the best .. others not so good.

 

[Bob Ipock]

The AQB decides on the content these days.....not the AI.

The AI is pretty much the only choice for CG classes, There is very, very little demand for a CG series of classes. There are minimum numbers of students before you can have a class. Most folks will have to travel. The same with CG CE courses. Not enough demand. A CG can take any of the same CE that trainee or CR would. Believe me....they do. Why? Cheaper and closer. Every person on this forum may be a scholar who seeks out the most expensive CE available and is willing to travel to get it. You would be in the minority.

It is not the AI membership card that makes a good instructor. They may well be...but maybe not.

 

[Michael S]

I took all of my CG classes through the AI over the last few years. I had several classes with repeat instructors (I would seek them out because they were excellent instructors and the locations worked for me). I had 6 or 7 instructors total including one class with two instructors. One of the two wasn't that great. Kind of monotone and reading from the book and slides, not as much interaction and personal insight as I've come to expect. Still, I've been pretty happy so far.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

The AQB decides on the content these days.....not the AI.

But AI's materials are better. I've taken tons of qualifying courses through various organizations and proprietary schools. The best textbooks by far were from AI and its predecessors (AIREA and SREA). The other organizations don't use AI's textbooks (at least I have not come across regionally), and the textbooks used tend to be inferior (or less detailed).

I'm not knocking the teachers that are not teaching through AI; there are plenty of good ones out there. I just find that the AI teachers teaching through the AI and using AI's materials have been the most detailed and informative courses.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

The AQB decides on the content these days.....not the AI.

The AI is pretty much the only choice for CG classes, There is very, very little demand for a CG series of classes. There are minimum numbers of students before you can have a class. Most folks will have to travel. The same with CG CE courses. Not enough demand. A CG can take any of the same CE that trainee or CR would. Believe me....they do. Why? Cheaper and closer. Every person on this forum may be a scholar who seeks out the most expensive CE available and is willing to travel to get it. You would be in the minority.

It is not the AI membership card that makes a good instructor. They may well be...but maybe not.

The AI should determine if they are good instructors or not ... that is the job of the education committee ... frankly Im not buying excuses of why the AI education appears to have become less than it has always been.

 

[Bob Ipock]

But AI's materials are better. I've taken tons of qualifying courses through various organizations and proprietary schools. The best textbooks by far were from AI and its predecessors (AIREA and SREA). The other organizations don't use AI's textbooks (at least I have not come across regionally), and the textbooks used tend to be inferior (or less detailed).

I'm not knocking the teachers that are not teaching through AI; there are plenty of good ones out there. I just find that the AI teachers teaching through the AI and using AI's materials have been the most detailed and informative courses.

David, you are missing my point. In the old days, the AQB and state boards did not approve books. They do now. All textbooks go through the AQB. The AI books will no longer be far, far above what Joe Blow is using.....both both will be using AQB approved materials.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

David, you are missing my point. In the old days, the AQB and state boards did not approve books. They do now. All textbooks go through the AQB. The AI books will no longer be far, far above what Joe Blow is using.....both both will be using AQB approved materials.

I doubt they're going to have an issue with AI's books. I'm not holding my breath that any other organization is going to come up with anything better. They simply don't have the resources.