Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

New Paradigms in Real Estate Education

Author/s: Yu Shi-Ming

Date Published: 1/01/2001

Published in: Volume 7 - 2001 Issue 2 (pages 79 - 88)

Abstract

This paper traces the development of real estate education over the last few decades. It addresses the different schools of thought on what constitutes real estate education; in particular, the US versus the UK models and the dilemmas facing each model. However, with increasing globalisation and the pervasiveness of information technology, the more fundamental issue facing real estate education today is its relevance to the professions as well as in the new knowledge economy. Both the curricula and the mode of delivery will need to accommodate these changes. New educational paradigms such as life-long learning, problem-based learning, and creative thinking will dictate the development of the real estate curricula. Information technology tools will change the traditional learning environment. To meet the challenges of these changes, both academic institutions as well as professional bodies need to re-examine the type of real estate graduate that will fit the future work place and the education that will give the desired outcome.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2001.11104096.pdf 14445921.2001.11104096.pdf (1MB)

Keywords

Curriculum Development - Paradigms - Real Estate Education

References

  • Applied Research Corporation (2000), 1999 NUS and NTU Graduate Employment Survey.
  • Avdiev, R. (2000), “Golden Apple or Poisoned Chalice? The Influence of Education on Careers”, Australian Property Journal, 36(4), 270-2.
  • Barr, R. and J. Tagg (1995), “From Teaching to Learning — A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education ‘, Change, Nov/Dec, 13-25.
  • Butler, J., K. Guntermann, M. Wolverton (1998), “Integrating the Real Estate Curriculum”. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 1(1), 51-66.
  • Dasso, J. (1976), “Real Estate Education at the University Level”, Recent Perspectives in Urban Land Economics, University of British Columbia.
  • Diaz, J. (1993), “Science, Engineering and the Discipline of Real Estate”, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 1(2), 183-195.
  • Epley, D. (1996), “The Current Body of Knowledge Paradigms Used in Real Estate Education and Issues in Need for Further Research”, The Journal of Real Estate Research, 12(2), 229-236.
  • Graaskamp, J. (1976), “Redefining the Role of University Education in Real Estate and Urban Land Economics”, The Real Estate Appraiser, Mar-April, 23-6.
  • Haworth, A., A. Jashapara and B. Smith-Bowers (1994), “Producing the Effective Worker for the Global Property Market”, 4 Australasian Real Estate Educators’ Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Lim, L.Y. (1992), “Real Estate Education in Singapore”, 2 Australasian Real Estate Educators’ Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Mertzke, A. (1927), “Status of Real Estate Education in the United States”, National Real Estate Journal, June 1927.
  • Newell, G. and C. Eves (2000), “Recent Developments in Property Education in Australia”, Australian Property Journal, 36(4), 275-8.
  • The Straits Times, “TT can make or break education institutions”, 10 January 2001, H12.
  • Weimer, A. (1956), “The Teaching of Real Estate and Business Administration”, Land Economics, Feb 1956.
  • Yu, S.M. (2000), Employers’ Perceptions of Real Estate Graduates. Unpublished. Research Report, NUS.