PAREA program

[CGinMN]

PAREA trainers are more qualified than Joe Skippy, but they're not the problem. The PAREA model is the problem, you can't skirt the economics and expect to train someone to be fully licensed for $7000.

I just hired an electrician to do pretty simple work in my house, swapping some outlets and breakers. There were two of them here, a journeyman and an apprentice, and it took them 3 hours. They charged $150/hr per person, so $900 for the labor with $200 in materials. I might need an electrician once every 5 years. This is the cost of owning a home, happy to pay it.

There needs to be a higher bar for appraisers, not lower. More testing, more experience, more supervision by the best qualified among us.

 

[J Grant]

PAREA trainers are more qualified than Joe Skippy, but they're not the problem. The PAREA model is the problem, you can't skirt the economics and expect to train someone to be fully licensed for $7000.

I just hired an electrician to do pretty simple work in my house, swapping some outlets and breakers. There were two of them here, a journeyman and an apprentice, and it took them 3 hours. They charged $150/hr per person, so $900 for the labor with $200 in materials. I might need an electrician once every 5 years. This is the cost of owning a home, happy to pay it.

There needs to be a higher bar for appraisers, not lower. More testing, more experience, more supervision by the best qualified among us.

What funcional human would want to be trained for a res license now, considering that the bulk of res work was Mortgage lender, and now it is shrinking, fees eroding daily, and there is no alternate for res license on any meaningful scale in the private sector
A trade has better prospects than res license with less lialbity and less time pressure and scrutiny. Appraisal work is unsteady in busy and slow cycles, compared to most fields with steady demand.

 

[alebrewer]

I don't see PAREA as a lower bar than the current model - in fact, I don't think you could set a lower bar than the current model. I think a formal training model is completely appropriate - that's how electricians are trained, Dr's, nurses, surveyors, etc. There is some combination of FORMAL training in conjunction with 'hand's on' field work. The 'hand's on' part isn't to teach someone how to do something - that's the goal of the formal training. The 'hand's on' part is to learn to put those new skills to work. It is, and always has been, a recipe for disaster to leave the formal training to someone who may - or may not - know how to train, or even what they're doing.

RE testing: IMO, testing should not be a 4 hour multiple choice exam, but rather more like a practicum, or oral exam. Heck - set it up like the AI SRA demo. We have to quit teaching the new folks to pass a test. They should be learning how to develop a credible appraisal (and report).

 

[J Grant]

There is no way someone could convince me that the PAREA trainers aren't exponentially more qualified to train the new generation than is some bozo who managed to not get in trouble for 3 years. I've no doubt there may be a better system than PAREA, but for the past several decades we've been teaching folks to pass a test - not teaching them how to appraise.

I love how you make blanket pronouncements as if they are a universal fact.. Many appraisers were trained to appraise, not just pass a test.

I have no issue with PAREA coursework but it does not substitute for field experience under supervision - yes there were some bad trainers. Still, the quality of the trainees was a problem as well with a lower bar of education and PAREA is not solving that.

 

[alebrewer]

I love how you make blanket pronouncements as if they are a universal fact.. Many appraisers were trained to appraise, not just pass a test.

It is a universal fact that, in order to train a new appraiser, one merely has to have held a credential for 3 years without having experienced disciplinary action (at least in the great state of Texas). It is also a universal fact that there is no baseline set of 'training requirements' - one's training could consist of making coffee for no less than 12 months, or it could consist of actually being trained how to appraise. Point is - there is no way to know, because there is no way to measure.

But I honestly appreciate that you love my pronouncements. I'll try to keep them coming.

 

[CGinMN]

I don't see PAREA as a lower bar than the current model - in fact, I don't think you could set a lower bar than the current model. I think a formal training model is completely appropriate - that's how electricians are trained, Dr's, nurses, surveyors, etc. There is some combination of FORMAL training in conjunction with 'hand's on' field work. The 'hand's on' part isn't to teach someone how to do something - that's the goal of the formal training. The 'hand's on' part is to learn to put those new skills to work. It is, and always has been, a recipe for disaster to leave the formal training to someone who may - or may not - know how to train, or even what they're doing.

RE testing: IMO, testing should not be a 4 hour multiple choice exam, but rather more like a practicum, or oral exam. Heck - set it up like the AI SRA demo. We have to quit teaching the new folks to pass a test. They should be learning how to develop a credible appraisal (and report).

It is an infinitely lower bar when it comes experience, because they are licensed with zero hours. By all means, replace PAREA with the QE or first round of CE. But that’s not what it here for. It’s here to replace the experience requirement. Electricians need 8000 hours of supervision before they can apply for the journeyman exam. And yes, there should be a higher bar for supervisory appraisers to be able to train.

 

[Non Sequitur]

There is no way someone could convince me that the PAREA trainers aren't exponentially more qualified to train the new generation than is some bozo who managed to not get in trouble for 3 years. I've no doubt there may be a better system than PAREA, but for the past several decades we've been teaching folks to pass a test - not teaching them how to appraise.

If I had to choose a bozo it wouldn't be one who hasn't been in the field for years or decades and was appointed by Mr. Handsley. And let's not forget is being paid around $125k a year to mentor students across the country. I'll side with the local bozo, at least there's a chance of success.

 

[J Grant]

It is a universal fact that, in order to train a new appraiser, one merely has to have held a credential for 3 years without having experienced disciplinary action (at least in the great state of Texas). It is also a universal fact that there is no baseline set of 'training requirements' - one's training could consist of making coffee for no less than 12 months, or it could consist of actually being trained how to appraise. Point is - there is no way to know, because there is no way to measure.

But I honestly appreciate that you love my pronouncements. I'll try to keep them coming.

Now you are backtraccking to the fact of 3 years - before you called trainers any bozo and people were taught to take a test and not to appriase.
I happen to agree that trainers should need to pass a course and test themselves and have access to a PAREA-type outline - but there also needs to be incentives for folks to train. PAREA came about because nobody wanted to train in the past decade due to the crappy AMC fees not enough to make it worth while and pay a trainee a split.

 

[DWiley]

RE testing: IMO, testing should not be a 4 hour multiple choice exam, but rather more like a practicum, or oral exam. Heck - set it up like the AI SRA demo.

When I took SREA 102, that is exactly how the final exam was. We got a packet of material on a hypothetical property and we had to produce an appraisal report including, market analysis, HBU, SCA with support for all adjustments, CA with support for site value and market extracted effective age and TEL, etc. In short, we had to do a mini demo in a day.

 

[George Hatch]

The development of appraiser competency isn't about knowing everything there is to know, but of working the appraisal process itself. Going through the process to find out what they need to find out about this particular property and its competing properties in the market. If you stick a veteran and a raw recruit into a new-to-them market segment the veteran will usually be capable of getting to a usable result more quickly than the rookie because of the veteran has more practice with using the appraisal process. Not just in using the MLS but with all the other details.

Rinse/repeat x 1000 gets an appraiser to a different level of fluidity with the data, and also gets an appraiser to a different level of context provided by the previous assignments. An appraiser might be impressed with a view amenity or some equestrian improvements the first couple times they see it but after some repetitions they'll get used to these features and take a more objective view.

You show up and the property owner takes you on the guided tour to show you every little thing. It takes a little practice to get into that neutral zone where you're not overreacting to "better" or "worse", but are just calling balls and strikes over the plate.

I look at a poor condition property and the broker is practically apologizing for the condition. I understand what they're saying but as an appraiser it's all parts-is-parts to me. I'm not supposed to be adding or detracting from the factual attributes. Every property has a value, and every property has utility to someone in one way or another.

A pre-service rookie has no experience holding the line when their own client is leaning on them to change a value or some borrower is calling them an idiot for not picking comps by price or seeking the highest value "they can support". It takes at least a little practice to grow the thick skin, to cultivate the willingness to say "no" if/when that's the case or to not waffle on their commitment to their conclusions when they're in the right.

No Sims-for-Appraisers role play game is going to convey to these trainees how often their objectivity will be challenged or the crucial necessity of not doing anyone any favors because they're a good guy/gal/furrie. We tell them in the QE training and I can see that some of them don't believe it, as if they think we're exaggerating, and that the constant challenges to their actual role can't possibly be that persistent and that pervasive. But it is that pervasive, and more. And the only way an appraiser fully grasps that is by personal exposure to it.

The quality of the instructors and the more limited amount of face time with those instructors and the complete lack of exposure to how appraisers interact with their clients and brokers and borrowers - I consider that a significant gap that no contrived word-problem gameplay will be able to adequately address.

If you haven't changed a poopy diaper then you're not a parent. If you haven't had a client drop you for not cooperating with their predetermined outcome then you're not an appraiser. Way of the world.