• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Just curious about trainees

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the biggest obstacle to trainees is the attitude they get once they learn. All of the sudden (many not all so dont get your panties in an uproar) the trainees know more than the mentor and they have a better way of doing things. They are full of new ideas, better customer service, faster ways of doing things, blah blah blah. The investment of the mentor is out the window once the trainee becomes certified and they go out on their own. Suddenly instead of making 50 or 60% they can undercut their mentor by 20%, and get a raise at the same time. Trust me I have seen this happen over and over and over. I personally think the certified appraiser should be required to stay atleast an additional two years after certification with their mentor so they can continue to learn not only appraising but also the business side of things. Since this doesnt happen ....

The mentor says screw it .. Im not training my competition. The new trainees pay for the old trainees mistakes and you are at a stalemate.

In my mind thats the true crux of the situation.
 
Last edited:
Stone said:
Maybe if you called it what it is, editing, he wouldn't be quite as upset. :icon_wink:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone appreaciates out of context quoting...or editing so that they can slant it for their own agenda. Especially an agenda that was already spelled out in a children's story...The Little Engine that Could. I think what many trainees fail to realize and experienced appraiser already know...Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement. You cannot teach that in a textbook, it's not buried in some forgotten library...and no matter how smart someone thinks they are, they are extremely naive to believe that they are different.

But Benji go on thinking you'll show the world, maybe you are different...just like the rest of us.
 
Brian Kirksey said:
I'm not sure that anyone would appreciate quoting that may be out of context - nor editing; so they can slant something for their own agenda. Especially an agenda that was portrayed in a children story book, "The Little Engine that Could".

...and, no matter how smart someone thinks they are, they are extremely naive to believe they are different.

But, Benji, go on, thinking you'll show the world; maybe you are different, "just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I can't help myself, Mr. Kirksey, I'm so independent :) I have to re-construct and edit, on my behalf, in order to comprehend.

...and, no matter how intelligent someone thinks they are, they are extremely naive to believe they are not different. I only see similarities.

Mr. Kirksey, I will go on; and I'll take that, "Little Engine That Could", children book with me ;)



Sincerely,
 
Last edited:
Ok, I fully admit I'm total noob and I DNS. But here's the problems I see.

1) 2000 hours is WAY too much time. I've got a buddy who flies for the airlines. When he gets a new copilot the guy sometimes has only 500-600 hours of flight time in his log book. If you're engaged in a systematic, quality teaching program you shouldn't need 2000 hours to learn to do this job competently; its just not that hard a thing.

2)The appraisal education system doesn't teach you to do appraisals, and there's no check on the quality of the training you receive from the trainer. So what happens is that trainees become state mandated slave labor for the black hat appraisers who are willng to use them un-ethically and who will become more black hat appraisers with no skills. The system that's supposed to guarantee competence is now insuring incompetence.

3) There's no requirement to take on trainees. If the state mandates 2000 hours from the trainees, simple mass balances suggests that people coming in to renew their license should show that they've spent some time training. Its been my experience in life that you never really learn a subject until you have to teach it. Allowing an appraiser to show 100 hours of year of training in lew of some ammount of CE would be a good start I think.

4) There needs to be a graduated level of responsability for trainees. Your signature shouldent be worthless one day and gold the next. Perhaps a system where after 200 hours trainees can shoot comps inependantly, then after 1000 then can do the field insp on the subject independantly, etc etc. If you pushed this system as law such that FNMA and the AMC's had to abide by it you would make trainees profitable for trainers who arent willing to break the rules as well as the bad guys. Its hard as a trainee to make money for a guy if he has to be joint at the hip with you and duplicate all your work. If the trainee could independantly and legall sholder some portion of the burden an the liability it would go a long way towards making the trainee system workable, ethical, and profitable for everybody.

5) USPAP and FNMA, for all their rules and regulations, havent manged to legislate competence. Such is the nature of government. That just a life lesson I suppose.

6) There needs to be a wall between the people trying to do the deal and the guy that's responsible for stopping it if it doesnt make financial sense. Actually providing the appriaser with the number its going to take to make the loan and requiring the appraiser to analyze the transaction as part of the appraisal has to be the stupidist thing ever. Its like mandating that every garden has Eve and the apple.
 
PE makes a good point and I agree with most of his post, but there are times when a newly licensed, or certified needs to not follow the mistakes of his supervisor.

If appraisers did everything the way they we were taught knowing it was wrong, all of us would criticize them for their actions.
 
Metamorphic said:
Ok, I fully admit I'm total noob and I DNS. But here's the problems I see.

1) 2000 hours is WAY too much time. I've got a buddy who flies for the airlines. When he gets a new copilot the guy sometimes has only 500-600 hours of flight time in his log book. If you're engaged in a systematic, quality teaching program you shouldn't need 2000 hours to learn to do this job competently; its just not that hard a thing. we agree .. 2000 hours is the wrong amout of time .. it should be 5000 hours. Give me a break its too long .. if you dont want to put in the time .. you shouldnt be in the profession. simple as that .. its not too long its not enough. At the end of 2 years you know enough about appraisal to be dangerous .. dont believe me ... look at the state of the US Housing market. Not all our fault .. your right. But many of the problems are the fault of young snot nose appraisers who dont have a clue.

2)The appraisal education system doesn't teach you to do appraisals, and there's no check on the quality of the training you receive from the trainer. So what happens is that trainees become state mandated slave labor for the black hat appraisers who are willng to use them un-ethically and who will become more black hat appraisers with no skills. The system that's supposed to guarantee competence is now insuring incompetence. Fire yourself .. if you find you are working for a blackhatter .. simply leave. Its your choice .. you are not a slave unless you want to be.

3) There's no requirement to take on trainees. If the state mandates 2000 hours from the trainees, simple mass balances suggests that people coming in to renew their license should show that they've spent some time training. Its been my experience in life that you never really learn a subject until you have to teach it. Allowing an appraiser to show 100 hours of year of training in lew of some ammount of CE would be a good start I think. Its my business I will train if I so choose. Simple as that.

4) There needs to be a graduated level of responsability for trainees. Your signature shouldent be worthless one day and gold the next. Perhaps a system where after 200 hours trainees can shoot comps inependantly, then after 1000 then can do the field insp on the subject independantly, etc etc. If you pushed this system as law such that FNMA and the AMC's had to abide by it you would make trainees profitable for trainers who arent willing to break the rules as well as the bad guys. Its hard as a trainee to make money for a guy if he has to be joint at the hip with you and duplicate all your work. If the trainee could independantly and legall sholder some portion of the burden an the liability it would go a long way towards making the trainee system workable, ethical, and profitable for everybody. You shoulder all of the burden and liability. If you dont think you do then you are mistaken. I agree with you that one day you shoudlnt be lead and the next gold .. that is wrong. I couldnt agree more. If you dont want your guy to duplicate all your work .. learn to do it better. I think your big issue is profitability for yourself .. sounds like you are working in the wrong place.

5) USPAP and FNMA, for all their rules and regulations, havent manged to legislate competence. Such is the nature of government. That just a life lesson I suppose. Its a life lesson that is learned over and over and over.

6) There needs to be a wall between the people trying to do the deal and the guy that's responsible for stopping it if it doesnt make financial sense. Actually providing the appriaser with the number its going to take to make the loan and requiring the appraiser to analyze the transaction as part of the appraisal has to be the stupidist thing ever. Its like mandating that every garden has Eve and the apple. Being a "noob" you wouldnt understand the old days when the borrower was also appraised. If they were not credit worthy they didnt get the loan. In the old days the banker knew who the number hitter was, multiplied their value by some factor they felt comfortable with and moved on. Now there are so many number hitters its pathetic. I review every contract I get, for many reasons, and never to hit a number. If you cant review a contract and not hit its number .. this is not the profession for you. Its simple .. either you have ethics or you dont.
Click to expand...


0987654321
 
PropertyEconomics said:
I think the biggest obstacle to trainees is the attitude they get once they learn. All of the sudden (many not all so dont get your panties in an uproar) the trainees know more than the mentor and they have a better way of doing things. They are full of new ideas, better customer service, faster ways of doing things, blah blah blah. The investment of the mentor is out the window once the trainee becomes certified and they go out on their own. Suddenly instead of making 50 or 60% they can undercut their mentor by 20%, and get a raise at the same time. Trust me I have seen this happen over and over and over. I personally think the certified appraiser should be required to stay atleast an additional two years after certification with their mentor so they can continue to learn not only appraising but also the business side of things. Since this doesnt happen ....

The mentor says screw it .. Im not training my competition. The new trainees pay for the old trainees mistakes and you are at a stalemate.

In my mind thats the true crux of the situation.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the full quote...I'd delete the parts that are not relevant to my question, but that appears to be frowned upon.

I would like for you to expand upon that - because frankly I happen to agree with you. Others have stated that there comes a point where you know enough to very successfully get yourself into trouble.

I am approaching (actually exceeded) my 3,000 hour threshold and will be submitting everything to the state for my license. I feel I have learned a lot and overall am a very competent appraiser - but I realize that there's a lot more out there to know and the only way for me to gain that knowledge is to stay with a good mentor.

2 years? Is that fair? Fair is what I am striving for/struggling with.

Is the 50/50 split fair? I tend to think so. After all, it was/is my mentor's client base which took years to build.

I should mention that I have ABSOLUTELY no thoughts about leaving my current employer. He is an amazing man. Incredibly smart. A wonderful sense of humor. What's better is that he allows me to ask questions (for instance, why are we doing it this way when last time you said to do it that way?) and he takes the time to explain the whole thing to me and never gets upset or frustrated. He has afforded me the opportunity to work on some pretty cool stuff.

On the other hand, from day one I have always made sure that I was paying for myself assuming a 50/50 split. I do not want to be a further burden than I already am, if you know what I mean.

Overall, I am trying to figure out what is fair. I know each situation is different. I fiercely strive to be fair.

I am not entertaining the thought of opening up someplace else. I picked this place for a reason.

I recognize that he should be compensated....my question is more abstract in nature. What is the bar? Where does fair then become generous.

Two years? Or is it more of a question of the complexity of the assignments and the amount of input needed to complete it competently?

Somebody....everybody...please help me to define fair.
 
Fair: Terms agreed to by both parties??
Fair: An increase in the split as you prove that you become more valuable?? Fair: To be treated as you'd expect to treat others??
Fair: a working relationship that benefits all parties??
Fair: Open communications between Payer & Payee??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top