<span style='color:darkblue'>Terry,
You write in part:
"...Pertaining to your concern about data
verification being ever so important and
how that relates to the date of the article
I linked..."
The date of the article stuff was not important at all, in fact, I almost removed that set of parenthesis prior to posting. I probably should have. It certainly had nothing to do with the verification bit. I included it almost as humor -- to show that you did, in my judgment, get
something right (kinda). Get it?
The verification reference only had to do with the suggestion for verifying the motivations of the author regarding "his opinions." Half way through reading it, it occurred to me that the author was an MAI -- while not identified as such on the web page -- which is OK. (As an experienced appraiser, how did I know he was an MAI? Read the rest of this post.) Like of the participants in transactions, we would like to know where everyone is coming from when considering their points of view -- their actions and their words. We need to know "what's in it for them" that otherwise may not be obvious to us. Because we cannot afford to be wrong -- either on an appraisal assignment or for a career choice.
The point is, in my opinion, you were partly taken. Partly, you were intended to be taken. The piece is subtly and cleverly written for its partial purpose (in my opinion). And, in part, it is simply BS (in my opinion). There is an overtone. There is an agenda. And again, one that the reader was intended to miss (in my opinion). While there are several, here's an example:
While it might be less than obvious from a less than critical reading of the article, most of the few MAIs who will speak up on the subject of "appraiser education" discourage "the initiative" (while never overtly) for college requirements for future appraisers. Were you aware of this? Have you noticed this? Is this "discouragement" intended to be in the interests of the public and the appraisal profession, or simply the interests of that organization?
I do not know what the AI's official position is (i.e., that which is printed and/or said in public -- and my guess is there is no such stated position), but I can guarantee you this: I know what the more significant "unofficial position" is regardless of any potential official position or not, for why the AI (as a group) would rather other appraisers not be thought of as being college educated. I am going to ask you to consider why this is the case? Think about it, and please post your conclusion.
Another partial agenda with the article was as a recruitment effort for the AI (in my opinion). Also, it was a particular recruitment effort aimed at the residential appraiser (again, in my opinion). What does the author have to gain that is above and beyond what any other MAI member might have to gain by a slanted or spun (i.e., past tense of "spin"?) publication like this? None. Except for the appreciation of other MAIs. And that's important. Everyone needs to do their part -- and he's done his (in my opinion). They would like to have the yearly dues from more additions to the AI ranks, but also would like more "market share" of appraisers in their ranks. These two concepts are very related, and very important, but they are distinct -- two important goals for the AI to insure influence and survival.
I hope they do survive (no joke). But for their own good -- and even more so for the good of the profession and other appraisers, they need to be watched a bit. I will get into more of my rationale later on.
My intention was not to be offensive to you, Terry. I apologize if that post (or this one) was or is.
dcj</span>
