Re‐engineering a valuation degree: how did we get here and where do we go?

James S. Baxter

Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 2007, vol. 25, issue 5, 444-467

Abstract: Purpose - This paper aims to review property and valuation education within the university context, using the experience of program re‐development at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, as a case study. Design/methodology/approach - The paper utilises a literature review, comparing and contrasting the program renewal process within the university to experiences elsewhere and their inherent values. In critically examining some of the difficulties found within the program renewal process, issues symptomatic of the wider valuation profession and tertiary education system have been revealed. It provides the genesis of a wider study linking tertiary education and the valuation profession's needs in the mid‐term. Findings - Valuation education is often subsumed within a generalist property curriculum. As part of their resource allocation models universities are now paying close attention to teaching quality, research output, and graduate outcomes, often favouring generalist curricula rather than discipline‐specific. There needs to be a careful analysis of the university experience of property and valuation students to ensure that graduate capabilities meet industry expectations, and that graduates themselves are able to adapt to future change. There also needs to be greater attention paid to the quality of teaching within universities and more evidence that mainstream tertiary teaching pedagogy is properly applied within the programs offered. Research limitations/implications - As a case study this paper chronicles the experiences at one university. It indicates a need for a wider, systematic study of how greater engagement by property and valuation academic and teaching staff can be more actively engaged in mainstream university teaching pedagogy. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in its chronicling of a detailed and structured renewal process. It highlights real difficulties faced by tertiary academics in a narrow discipline such as valuation during a renewal process, aimed at continuing high‐quality professional education.

Keywords: Asset valuation; Tertiary education; Stakeholder analysis; Graduates; Property management (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:jpifpp:v:25:y:2007:i:5:p:444-467

DOI: 10.1108/14635780710776666

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Property Investment & Finance is currently edited by Nick French

More articles in Journal of Property Investment & Finance from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().