The Future of Real Estate Education: A Multi-Faceted Perspective

Abstract

This paper is the culmination of efforts by a group of participants at the 32^nd Annual American Real Estate Society Conference in Denver who met to discuss the future of real estate education, and its authors represent the diversity and breadth reflective of the field itself. Previous literature, spanning more than 50 years, has consistently maintained that the issues related to the study of real estate are too complex to easily resolve, resulting in a lack of consensus regarding an accepted body of knowledge. This paper is unique in that it not only identifies issues and challenges inherent in today’s academic climate, it also provides for a collection of options, both applied and aspirational, that build on existing and potential structures. Indeed, the authors do not believe that there is one best model for the future of real estate education, nor that we should expect there to be. Rather, this paper is an important addition to the existing body of literature for its identification of solutions that embrace the breadth of both practical and academic knowledge in the expansive and ever-evolving field of real estate.

Keywords:

• Real estate education
• real estate degree programs

The Education Track at the annual meeting of the American Real Estate Society was established in 2008 to further the organization’s educational mission in the field. Since then, a number of panels and paper sessions¹ have been held each year covering different aspects of real estate education, such as curriculum,² department and faculty matters related to education,³ specific advice for faculty,⁴ student engagement,⁵ the use of technology,⁶ extracurricular resources and activities,⁷ and ensuring students are well-prepared upon graduation.⁸

A logical next step, then, is to discuss the future of real estate education, which was the topic of the Education Track of the 32^nd Annual American Real Estate Society Conference in 2016. In a session moderated by Tom Geurts, panelists and participants alike had an animated discussion highlighting the multiple, and often divergent opinions regarding the future of real estate education.

All session participants were invited to contribute, and the respondents comprise the authors of this paper. We believe that the ideas expressed here should, in theory, transcend geographical barriers, especially in a time when universities are increasingly competing on a global level. As such, this paper reflects the main findings of the original discussion as well as the invited contributions, and is structured in five sections. In the first, The Importance of Real Estate Education: Strengths and Weaknesses, the authors review past literature and identify many of the challenges and unique strengths inherent in the study of real estate overall. In the second section, Real Estate as a Field of Study in the Broader Curriculum, the authors outline the premise that the study of real estate should not be considered an isolated field. Rather, given the inherent impact on technology, society, and the economy, integrating an understanding of real estate into other disciplines is key to facilitating innovation across all sectors. In the third section, Changes to the Education Model, the authors identify effective and innovative ways to deliver content in order to maximize stakeholder success both today and in the future. In Working with Other Stakeholders, the authors discuss how to strengthen relationships between students and alumni, and in the final section, How We Can Better Connect with (Future) Students, the authors identify potential improvements. The information conveyed throughout reflects the authors’ combined experience, which spans undergraduate and graduate programs, traditional classrooms and e-learning, real estate-specific and generalist education, business schools and dedicated real estate programs throughout the world—as does much of the literature cited. Given this breadth, the material is intended to be applicable to real estate education in general, except where specified.

Within our larger discussion, four main themes emerge: namely, (1) What defines real estate as a course of study? (2) What are students seeking from their education providers? (3) What are employers seeking from program graduates? and (4) How do we best deliver the necessary content and skills? These themes are closely connected, since real estate is largely an applied discipline and the question of which types of positions employers are seeking to fill (entry level, middle management, etc.) often drives—or should drive—the curriculum within a program. Consequently, these four themes will continue to affect the trajectory of real estate education. Since no program can be everything to all in the broad spectrum of the real estate industry, there is and should continue to be an ample range of program curricula offered at universities, both in the United States and abroad, that will allow candidates to find a program that fits the diversity of their professional and personal needs.

Real estate education is not immune to the dramatic changes that are taking place in higher education overall. In many ways, however, university real estate programs, the industry, and professional associations stand to uniquely benefit the most from these changes, as they are more interlinked and adaptable than many other fields of study. This paper is a new contribution to the education literature not because it advises educators and practitioners on the best way to proceed—indeed, as this paper shows and as is indicated by prior research, the complex and varied influences that educators in real estate must contend with prohibit a “one size fits all” approach. Rather, this paper is a compilation of the professional opinions and experiences of educators and researchers across numerous academic real estate programs in an attempt to identify some of the major points being established at these crossroads of real estate education, and to describe the ways that different programs are addressing the challenges both today and for the future.

The Importance of Real Estate Education: Strengths and Weaknesses

One might say that real estate, and the study and education of real estate, have never been more important. Real estate has always been the cornerstone of the economy—and indeed the broader society. Property serves as the bedrock upon which we literally build, providing the structure on which we can develop as both individuals and as nations. It dictates where we live, it is the basis for nearly all economic activity, and it is instrumental in providing opportunities for growth and development around the globe. The U.S. population is projected to grow at a rate of 0.7% annually during the period 2012–2040, resulting in forecasts for residential real estate of an estimated 881,000 new housing starts per year. For commercial property, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA) estimates that the figures for commercial floor space, totaling 81.1 billion square feet as of 2010, will rise nearly 16%, to 93.9 billion, by 2025, or more than 34%, to 108.8 billion, as of 2040 (U.S. EIA, 2014). Currently, the supply of real estate talent from university programs does not remotely match the demand from an industry that constitutes such a large portion of the U.S. economy.

Despite all of this, the discipline of real estate has never held either the professional or academic esteem that other business and economic disciplines have enjoyed, such as finance, accounting, or even marketing. This is likely due to the relatively limited level of familiarity that the average consumer has with the real estate industry, given that their experience is typically limited to renting an apartment or buying/selling a home. The knowledge and education required for these basic, but essential, functions does little to demonstrate the extensive knowledge needed to research, analyze, examine, valuate, forecast, and mitigate the many risks associated with making sound business decisions regarding the acquisition, investment, financing, and development of real estate—and these tasks cover just one aspect of the multi-faceted real estate industry. Environmental and social drivers, as well as functional design, future adaptability, and sustainability issues, to name just a few of the other important considerations, also impact real estate and the built environment. The general public, however, has somehow failed to recognize the significant business, sociological, and environmental acumen that is required for mastery of the field. Therefore, real estate education has never received the thoughtful consideration as a specialized academic discipline that it deserves. Interestingly, one finds that in the (somewhat limited), pertinent literature in this area, many of these themes have recurred as long as research and curriculum discussions have been published. Indeed, Weimer (1956) believed that the field received limited recognition from business schools because courses are taught from a standpoint of land economics or the practical business of real estate. Further, Dasso and Woodword (1980, p. 408) stated that real estate is still an “ill-defined mutation,” and are unsure whether it can ever achieve definition as a distinct field, whereas Diaz (1993) argued that real estate is, indeed, a discipline. However, he also observed that there is a great deal of subject diversity without much corresponding depth, which makes it doubtful that the field will find the unified front necessary to confront its extensive range of issues and problems. Indeed, the American Real Estate Society undertook a multi-year initiative to determine its role in defining and disseminating the study of real estate, culminating in a broad directive to expand the scope of research, encouraging both the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the field (Black et al., 1996). In the same journal issue, however, Donald (1996), offered a different perspective, stating that the real estate field had not completed its primary, evolutionary stages of exploration and debate that would allow it to complete the basic level of delineation and consensus of opinion that would result in a standard body of knowledge. Within business schools, real estate curricula for majors have been moving toward a core group of courses, though there has been no real agreement on what courses make up a minor or concentration (Shelton & Howard, 2003). In examining what was important in a graduate real estate program, Galuppo and Worzala (2004) found similar issues with breadth, as they found a marked lack of agreement among administrators relating to an accepted common body of knowledge that should form the core course offering for any given program. Overall, the prior research indicates that there has been a belief that issues within the study of real estate are either too complex to address and resolve, or that the study of real estate itself has not evolved enough to engender understanding and respect from the public or the academy. However, as we shall show in the following sections, this perception may be the result of making comparisons to other, more traditional, and less integrated areas of study, rather than focusing on the ever-evolving, practical as well as academic, expansive scope that makes the field of real estate unique.

It is commonly accepted among real estate educators that the curricular strengths in university--based real estate programs are their theoretical foundations and research-enhanced teaching. On the other hand, there is criticism about the current curriculum, namely, a lack of applied learning, and the experiential faculty-depth necessary to explore niche specializations. Indeed, there are many challenges for real estate education within this current structure. Within the university, the center of real estate learning may be housed in various departments or schools; for example, among the 56 universities worldwide that offer real estate concentrations for either a bachelor’s or master’s degree, 31 of them are housed in business, economics, or management schools/departments and 17 of them are located in urban planning, urban studies, or design schools/departments (ULI, 2008).⁹ Sometimes within a single university, there are two real estate programs or concentrations, one each in the business school and the design and planning school. While this is a reflection of the interdisciplinary nature and the integration of real estate within a broader curriculum, as will be discussed in the third section, it also poses potential challenges to hiring and maintaining faculty. Full-time real estate faculty at most universities range from one or two members to perhaps a half dozen, with even the largest real estate programs having difficulty delivering subject matter expertise in the various sectors, such as retail or housing, or in all the real estate subfields, whether property management, private equity, corporate real estate, or other areas of interest to students. In addition, for the full-time academic, the challenge of the system is often the need to publish in specific journals in order to advance professionally within the college or university, which competes with the need for practical, industry-relevant research and a broad teaching mandate. With the predominance of real estate programs located within the purview of a business school, we note that most U.S. domiciled and finance-centric journals skew toward theoretical mathematical modeling or complex empirical modeling. As such, there is a greater focus on research on the listed sector, with its readily available data, than on private, direct real estate, and a growing inaccessibility of such work to practitioners (Baum & Lizieri, 2013). This has further served to limit the expertise of the teacher/scholar, as educators are often ‘forced’ to specialize in certain areas in order to achieve promotion and has resulted in challenges to delivering the broad scope of product that is demanded. Meanwhile, professional industry associations disseminate valued, practice-oriented articles through association publications, but the practitioner-authors typically lack the time for the kind of thorough, research-intensive investigation found in peer-reviewed journals. Indeed, as an alternative to the traditional teacher/scholar model, the New York University Schack Institute of Real Estate, which claims to be the largest real estate master’s program in the world, staffs its program predominantly with adjuncts who are alumni from the program, allowing them to provide the desired breadth of educational offerings, but often without a sound theoretical basis. The industry, meanwhile, maintains a cottage industry of sponsoring practical, applied research and creating ad hoc alliances with academia as needed. These collaborative models, whereby academics gain access to industry knowledge, data, and other association resources in return for more applied research, hold promise for the future, and will be discussed in detail later.

As universities work to address the issues surrounding the traditional structure in real estate education, higher education itself is undergoing a transformation. Students expect more from their education than simply the transfer of knowledge. In the United States, the traditional higher education model of tuition buying a bundle of educational goods at a single institution over a predetermined time is being eroded by the specter of student debt, a desire (or need) to work, and an increased awareness of getting value for money from one’s education. Value-conscious students can shop for classes by taking individual courses online or at community colleges for a discounted cost. Virtual, multimedia, and Web 2.0 technologies have resulted in competition to the traditional educational model via online degrees, and massive open online courses (MOOCs) provide a free alternative for those simply looking to expand their knowledge. Enterprising universities are offering course credit aggregators, which combine courses, experiences, and credentials into a portfolio signifying a degree. In this regard, the degree is gradually becoming just one component of an ever-evolving career portfolio of continuing learning experiences as, increasingly, there is a call for university education to reflect what is happening in both the marketplace and in society as a whole.

Despite this pressure, and the fact that advances in technology have impacted just about every other industry, the basic model for university education has not changed much over the past seven or eight decades. Indeed, there are still administrators and educators that question or resist the application and validity of options such as online learning, with one of the most common criticisms of online education being the lack of face-to-face engagement. However, even those who favor live, face-to-face education might agree that the lecture model of delivery is insufficient to meet the demands and expectations of students today, who might be better served with more experiential and professionally-based education. Indeed, the latter may also serve to alleviate the pressure surrounding university costs and increasing demand from students to limit time away from their profession, or to gain an advantage in employability, through the creation of programs whereby students receive more focused and concentrated credentials; both of which will be explored in greater detail here.

In Europe, the expansion of programs has been facilitated by changes in the educational structure, particularly the Bologna Accord, which suggests a three-year undergraduate, two-year postgraduate format and attempts to create a common credit weighting system. The United Kingdom, with its one-year master’s degree, remains an outlier, since around the world two- or three-year master’s programs are the norm. There has been particularly impressive growth and strengthening in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany (Baum & Lizieri, 2002). However, in Germany, much of the real estate education is provided by Fachhochschulen, or Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS), which maintain a more practically-oriented focus as opposed to the more traditional, research-oriented Universitäten. The Bologna Accord permits UAS to award bachelor’s and master’s degrees, allowing for the types of developments in real estate education discussed above to evolve separately, oriented toward providing students with the practical education, led by professors with professional experience, that is valued by employers. Accordingly, the Bologna Accord is expected to improve the recognition of real estate as a legitimate academic undertaking (D’Arcy & Taltavull, 2009).

Finally, we note that employers recognize that traditional modes of education are often not optimally preparing students for their careers, as recent research shows that only one in three firms believe academic institutions adequately prepare students for roles in their organizations (Careerbuilder, as cited in Mulgan et al., 2016). For example, in 2015, the Association of American Colleges and Universities reported that employers do not think that the higher education system is providing students with the fundamental skills required for success in the workplace, in particular, applied knowledge, critical thinking, and communication (Hart Research Associates, 2015). Within the study of real estate, studies (see Hoxley et al., 2011; Poon, 2012, 2014) have found that employers are concerned not only with candidates’ lack of so-called soft skills, but also their lack of commercial awareness of the sector. This problem is not limited to the field of real estate; a study by McKinsey & Company that looked at employment and skill development across nine countries found that 43% of employers surveyed said that they could not find enough skilled workers, with an estimated shortfall of 85 million high- and middle-skilled workers by 2020 globally (Mourshed et al. 2012). Building on this literature, we discuss current and potential changes to the existing real estate educational model in the final section of this paper.

Real Estate as a Field of Study in the Broader Curriculum

In spite of its interdisciplinary nature, real estate as a field of study conventionally emphasized transactions and the commercial nature of how properties are financed, traded, and evaluated as investments as compared to other assets. Real estate has been viewed as an applied practice and consequently, especially in the case of advanced degrees, the subject is often taught at professionally-oriented graduate schools. Given the dual challenge of teaching the professional skills necessary for employment while maintaining the intellectual rigor of the academic environment in real estate curricula, one can argue that the typical 12- to 18-month U.S. master’s program, or the often limited undergraduate credit requirement within real estate alone, render it impractical to teach each of the subjects inherent in real estate practice in sufficient depth during the period of study. Indeed, a common theme within this discussion is the difficulty of addressing each subject encompassed by real estate with equal attention. As such, rather than being the source of contention described in previous literature, selected foci and multiple offerings in the curriculum could instead serve to strengthen real estate education. However, as we noted earlier, the staffing requirements to achieve a full education within the traditional structure of the university may be beyond the scope of both university resources and expertise.

Real estate is located at the intersection between the space market and the capital markets. It can be viewed as both a product of development and investment, as well as a process of integrating multiple stages of entitlements, market studies, design, financing, construction, and operation. Table 1 highlights some of the major subject areas currently offered by U.S. real estate programs.

Table 1. Major subject areas currently offered by U.S. real estate programs.

Real Estate Development Stages	Entitlements	Market Studies and Feasibility	Design and Planning	Financing and Investment	Construction/ Construction Management	Operation
Major Academic Education Subjects	Land Use, Zoning, Urban Development, Legal Studies/Real Estate Law Public Policy, Urban Politics	Urban Economics, Underwriting/Feasibility, Market Analysis	Architecture, Building Typologies, Products and Systems, Urban Design, Sustainability Design, Urban Planning	Economics, Finance, Capital Markets, Investment Transactions	Construction Management, Construction Technology, Project Delivery	Accounting, Taxation, Property Management, Marketing, Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Real Estate Enterprise

Note: Compiled by B. Wang, based on a survey of curricula offered by 26 major real estate programs in U.S. universities

Furthermore, even within these established areas of study, we see an already highly interdisciplinary field becoming even more diverse as the evolution of real estate studies mirrors what is increasingly important to today’s society. It is no longer sufficient to understand the contribution of urban amenities and urban design to the value of real estate, and how to develop and invest in projects that bear financial profits; one must also understand how to focus on generating long-term social and economic value in the urban context (Wang, 2017). In an era that has witnessed marked advancements in technology, real estate is expanding beyond traditional design and construction. On the construction side, we see advances in materials such as compositional concrete and innovative aerodynamic designs leading to the proliferation of mega skyscrapers. On the user side, we have the application of technologies such as building information modeling (BIM), augmented reality (AR), and three-dimensional (3D) printing, which not only help to solidify the vision of developers and related professionals seeking to optimize outcomes in advance of any initial investment, but also serves to reduce the cost and time involved in coordinating multiple parties’ specializations in the construction process, increases accuracy in forecasting design and production results, and improves quality control (Wang, 2017). These are but a few examples showing that, increasingly, formerly unrelated disciplines may become a critical component of real estate education.

Thus, the argument can be made that rather than try to deliver all of the knowledge needed to succeed as a real estate professional in one program, real estate should become part of mainstream education. Given the impact of real estate in every aspect of business and society, it would be extremely advantageous for young people to understand the ways in which other areas of study are affected by the built environment, as real estate will increasingly require professionals with the skills and thought processes that foster interdisciplinary innovation and its application to other sectors.

The introduction of real estate into the general curriculum can be seen at the undergraduate level, with the addition of or increase in real estate offerings, specifically in minors and concentrations within business schools (Shelton & Howard, 2003). At the graduate level, the demand for a more well-rounded thinkers is evidenced in the fact that, in the United States, many real estate development and investment-focused companies often choose to recruit from Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs rather than exclusively from real estate programs, due to the broader focus of the former. While the training of students enrolled in real estate programs often focuses specifically on what the real estate industry requires–or has traditionally required—such as transactions, legal issues, valuation, planning, and development, some programs may lack more potentially peripheral, yet value-adding, subjects such as entrepreneurship, marketing, accounting, and statistics. In examining the pedagogical foci of a two-year MBA program, we observe that MBA students are trained in a greater range of generalized fields such as marketing, accounting, and general management. Indeed, we see the trend of inserting real estate into the general curriculum at this level reflected in the fact that U.S. MBA programs are increasingly offering real estate–related courses or concentrations, combining both the coveted breadth of generalized learning with a fundamental education in real estate. Fifteen of the top 20 U.S. MBA programs offer real estate pathways, despite the fact that seven of these universities also offer separate master of real estate degrees. Internationally, we also note this trend in the United Kingdom, where Judge (Cambridge), Saïd (Oxford), Henley (Reading), and London Business Schools have each added real estate electives within the last decade, with the Oxford and Reading programs assisted by grants from the Investment Property Forum (IPF) Educational Trust, and with Reading also offering a separate master of real estate degree. Moreover, as previously noted, the standard time commitment for a master’s degree outside of the United States and the United Kingdom is 24 months, potentially alleviating many of the issues that have been associated with a shorter course of study.

Changes to the Education Model

Experiential Learning

Interestingly enough, although the study of real estate is grounded in practical application, the primary delivery of content across most universities remains the traditional lecture, which is quite an inert means of thought provocation and engagement. These lectures may sometimes be supplemented by case studies, with learning assessed by traditional exams, quizzes, and papers. Even those who favor live, face-to-face education might agree that the lecture model of delivery is insufficient to meet the demands and expectations of students today. Certainly, real estate education is strengthened when it has the opportunity to be applied, whether through association-sponsored competition, employer-sponsored capstone project, or actual practicum. Real challenges and real-life assignments through partnership with real estate companies benefit all parties, with students gaining critical experience, employers gaining exposure to job candidates, and faculty providing relevant education in addition to the all-important theoretical foundation.

Indeed, there is a vast repository of research relating to learning styles and the optimization of learning. Thirteen major learning models have been developed from a total of 71 identified models based on the Myers-Briggs classification system, with over 2,000 articles published on pedagogy related to this system alone (Coffield et al., 2004). Some pedological models are founded in the idea that learning is based on neurological stimulation of the brain or predetermined genetic coding, whereas others apply accepted psychological theories to identify individual learning styles. In spite of the amount of pedagogical research undertaken, we point out that the traditional staple of university learning remains the lecture, which is inherently passive and individual (Wheeler, 2012). Under this construct, content is king, and that content is generated by experts.

However, there is a mode of learning for students that can be especially applicable to real estate. This format is based on the work of Kolb (1984) who states that “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping experience and transforming it,” (p. 41). His process proposes that experiential learning is broken down into six main features: (1) Learning is best conceived as a process, rather than defined by outcomes; (2) Learning is a continuous process grounded in experience; (3) Effective learners require the ability to resolve conflicts between dialectically opposing means of adaptation; (4) Learning is an all-inclusive adaptation to the world; (5)Learning involves transactions between self and the environment; and (6) Learning is the process of creating knowledge “which is the result of the transaction between social knowledge and personal knowledge” (Kolb, 1984, p. 36). In this process, learning is more interactive, social, and collaborative. Under this construct, context is king, and the content is generated by the user. In other words, traditional learning focuses on answers, whereas experiential learning puts the focus on the questions. This enables students to embed real estate as an object of study into the broader socio-economic context they want and employers expect. Hence, an increased adoption of experiential learning approaches and methods could lead to more effective teaching of real estate.

One such experiential method gaining popularity is known as challenge-driven learning. Although fundamental knowledge will always be at the core of university education, the challenge-driven model fuels learning through the combination of applying existing knowledge to open-ended problems, as found in real market situations, and interdisciplinary teamwork. This combination results in the creation of new knowledge through collaboration, critical thinking, and applied problem solving. Such challenge-driven problem solving enables students to utilize knowledge gained in the classroom via more traditional approaches and apply it to the real-life challenges that will require them to create, invent, and develop new ideas, approaches, and solutions.

Advocates have always existed for case-based studies and/or experiential learning in the real estate literature, beginning with Weimer (1956), who argued that case studies based on current real estate problems of current executives should be used in teaching. Butler et al. (1998) advocated for the application of real world problems in experiential learning but also acknowledged the extreme time commitment for faculty and staff. Anderson et al. (2000) proposed a framework by which faculty could integrate case-based learning into their real estate curriculum. Manning & Roulac (2001) advocated real-world classroom team projects and challenge, and Rose and Delancy (2007) examined case-based real estate learning in light of AACSB accreditation standards. Most recently, Palm and Pauli (2018) have advocated for live cases with industry practitioners.

Certainly, the integration of both traditional modes of instruction and experiential learning methods would address several of the aforementioned concerns identified by employers in the 2015 Association of American Colleges and Universities report by giving students a greater understanding of the real-world scenarios associated with real estate, the tools and experience needed to work toward solving real-world problems, and support both personal and employer confidence in their abilities. This blend of educational models is well-suited to the built environment disciplines, since team-based solution finding and decision making are required in the dynamic world of real estate. Indeed, some universities have found that student competitions sponsored by professional organizations often provide the most realistic scenarios. Furthermore, the assessment of the competition submissions is usually conducted by outside professionals who serve as judges, which adds an even higher degree of reality to the challenge and provides a medium for the identification of talent through the interaction of professional mentors for teams, judging panels, and presentations. As such, these real estate competitions provide an opportunity for university students to experience real-world projects and to interact with the industry, and are increasingly popular ways for associations to connect with students. The popularity and longevity of industry-sponsored competitions, such as the Hines/ULI Student Competition, the Case Competition, and the CoreNet Global Academic Challenge, as well as the proliferation of new competitions sponsored by such associations as NAIOP, ICSC, and the Harold E. Eisenberg Foundation, reflect the effectiveness and subsequent demand for this type of learning and networking opportunity.

Cross-Disciplinary Study within the University

Participating in case competitions is just one way to introduce challenge-based learning into the traditional real estate curriculum. Additional means could also include developing cross-disciplinary classes involving disciplines typically outside the realm of business and real estate (such as engineering or sociology), partnering with industry to create specific problem-solving labs to take on actual project challenges, or working with local municipalities to address real community needs. A comprehensive example of this approach is the Grand Challenge model, in which universities issue a challenge to address one or more of society’s most pressing issues, and educators team with students, government, and industry to solve problems. It can be argued that, as in the case of the UCLA’s Sustainable LA Grand Challenge to transition LA County to 100% renewable energy and locally-sourced water, and to enhance ecosystem and human health by 2050), real estate will be a key component to finding workable solutions (Popowitz & Dorgelo, 2018). Given that real estate is a core component of our socioeconomic fabric, real estate educators could also be more proactive in participating in seemingly unrelated grand challenge topics that have encompassed topics such as global health, migration, coastal hazards, and social trust (Weiss & Khademian, 2019).

Even without the collaborative structure of the Grand Challenge, at the university level the center of real estate learning may be housed in different, or multiple, departments or schools. There is little research regarding the efficacy or differences in this educational structure save for that of McFarland and Nguyen (2010) who, focusing solely on graduate programs, found such programs to be longer in duration and more variable in content. Indeed, be it due to resource constraints or the broad spectrum of knowledge that is required within the field, many universities are engaging in a cross-disciplinary approach to real estate education. Specialized knowledge in areas such as land economics, law, accounting, finance, construction/engineering, and architecture allow for students to supplement or create a real estate curriculum with specialized learning that corresponds to their career aspirations. Additionally, course sharing between departments allows for the more efficient allocation of often sparse resources. Furthermore, at some universities, this cross-disciplinary approach is seen as the cornerstone of the educational process, ultimately resulting in a well-rounded graduate.

In Germany this approach is very common, with a long history of successful implementation at schools such as the University of Wuppertal and the Technical University of Berlin (Schulte, 2003). Other German universities are also offering an interdisciplinary generalist degree spanning multiple departments, such as architecture and urbanism, civil engineering and management, art and design, and media. This is in response to a need for employees skilled in utilizing holistic concepts, coordination, and cooperation in a world that is becoming more and more complex and requiring sustainable decisions and actions. Sample German curricula addresses all four perspectives of real estate: investor, user, producer, and society. This approach leads to combining educational modules from architecture, civil engineering, building technology, urban planning, urban and architectural sociology, property and facility management, asset management, economy and business administration, and law. Management, leadership and societal/ethical issues would not only be addressed through theoretical concepts but also by way of example in nearly all classes.

University Partnering/Outsourcing Concentrations and Content to Associations

Moving beyond the synergies between universities and professional organizations for case competitions to address the aforementioned resource constraints involved in providing both breadth and depth of real estate knowledge, we observe additional natural synergies between university real estate programs and professional associations. Despite the fact that the supply of real estate talent from university programs does not remotely match the demand of an industry constituting 8% or more of the U.S. economy nor, in the eyes of many real estate employers, do graduates’ skills always align with their specific needs, it is a stretch to argue that a pipeline exists between university real estate programs and the industry. It has already been shown that industry participation can be a key beneficial component in real estate education (Chambers et al., 2009; Galuppo & Worzala, 2004; Shi-Ming, 2001; Tu et al., 2009; Weinstein & Worzala, 2008; Worzala, 2002). Professional associations are well positioned to serve as conduits for real estate jobs with their member/employers and connections to the industry in partnership with university programs. Employers and universities, meanwhile, would mutually benefit from collaborative models whereby the industry partners have greater participation in design of the program of study and placement support through internship and direct hiring.

With more than 45 professional associations today engaged in providing credentialing, advocacy, networking, and professional identity to various areas of real estate practice, there is both precedent and opportunity for university/association joint programs that combine theory and practice, concurrently awarding university degrees and professional designations which could be expanded industry-wide. Professional associations have a long history of providing education and instructional resources that academia would typically provide, due to the relatively late development of university-based real estate programs and a lack of corporate real estate training. Although the first course in real estate was taught at the University of Wisconsin in 1892, outside of a handful of universities offering formal programs in real estate, including New York University-Schack’s offerings through continuing studies in 1967, it was not until the 1980s that most of the recognized university programs debuted. Conversely, many real estate professional associations have beginnings stretching to the 1930s and earlier, and historically have sought to fill the need for education and instructional resources that academia otherwise might have served.

For instance, in the 1980s in the United Kingdom, when there were few formal real estate degree programs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) prescribed the syllabi required of a university program to gain recognition and exemption from their professional examinations. These partnerships have also been seen to evolve over time. With the recent growth of real estate programs among the more highly ranked U.K. universities, along with an emphasis on commercial investment and finance rather than valuation, the RICS relaxed its prescriptive approach to program structures and has become much more flexible in recognizing specialist programs under its partnership arrangements, which in turn is linked to its international expansion program. Additionally, in Germany, although some university programs do ask to become accredited, other universities have been dropping out of the RICS accreditation program based on the level of effort involved in program participation combined with the fact that students can now become members without the accreditation. Indeed, in the United States there seems to be the same level of ambivalence at the university level. Yet increased RICS membership is favorable, especially with the recent RICS initiatives such as Our Changing World, which stress innovation and ethical aspects of real estate that have thus-far been underrepresented in many curricula.

Other examples of collaboration between universities and professional organizations are the Appraisal Institute with its member of Appraisal Institute (MAI) membership designation, long considered the gold standard in the commercial appraisal field by practicing appraisers, and the Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) designation offered by the CCIM Institute. Both institutes provide courses that provide a full concentration and award professional credentials and, like the RICS, they have also had a history of partnering with academia to help influence course subject matter, ensuring that the content being delivered meets the standards relative to their required body of knowledge. This allows the student to know that the material learned is directly relevant to their anticipated profession, and allows the professional organization to ensure that the content delivered is directly applicable to professional accreditation. For example, a student graduating with an MSRE from Texas A&M University would be considered to have fulfilled all of the educational requirements for an MAI designation, as well as qualify for the CCIM fast track to designation, effectively giving them a competitive advantage over their non-accredited peers.

Another potential facet of the university/professional association partnership relates to the emerging concept of nontraditional credit, meaning that a student may receive credit for knowledge or experience gained outside of a traditional college setting. Given the necessity for additional education to achieve a professional designation, a number of real estate associations have resources and subject matter expertise focused on sector and subfield areas to deliver partial or full programs, but they lack the full-time faculty focus, degree status, and traditional academic brand in the marketplace. By partnering with these associations and allowing credit for professional courses, university programs could quickly expand their capacity to meet student interest in real estate across all real estate subject areas, and they could significantly expand their offerings and available concentrations. For instance, the National Association of Home Builders could customize their extensive housing and home construction courses into a concentration tailored to students interested in housing and residential development. If a university does not have enough faculty to teach property and asset management, it could allow students to engage in the Institute of Real Estate Management’s (IREM) program, which has courses leading to the Certified Property Manager (CPM) designation.

Similar opportunities abound: Few, if any, universities provide coursework focused on corporate real estate. Thus, CoreNet Global’s Master of Corporate Real Estate (MCR) program fulfills a critical educational need with its six-course curriculum and work experience requirement. Students aspiring to jobs in real estate private equity are eager to learn from investment manager practitioners actively involved in today’s deal structures. Thus, collaboration with the National Association of Real Estate Investment Managers (NAREIM) could provide students insight and access to the world of real estate investment management to complement their required university finance and investments coursework. These credit allowances could be easily tailored to both student and university needs, ranging from electives to full concentrations or minors, with the added benefit of students graduating with, or working toward, their relevant professional designations. Additionally, such partnerships provide the professional association the opportunity to build relationships with students (and future members) early in their careers as well as to build bridges between graduating talent and employer members.

Impact Partnerships

Professional partnerships with higher education can go beyond simply influencing curriculum choices. Another potential evolution in real estate education would be the development of impact partnerships. When Arizona State University and Starbucks launched their innovative tuition-reimbursement partnership in 2014, providing full tuition to Starbucks employees and enabling them to earn a bachelor’s degree online, it illustrated the potential of e-learning platforms and creative university/corporate alliances. Less obvious were the attractive financial terms to both partners due to the economics of scale, as well as the talent attraction, retention, and esprit de corps advantages accruing to Starbucks. One could reasonably expect extensions of this model to spread to other companies, as well as to other fields/industries, including real estate.

At the time of the joint Starbucks/ASU program launch, Starbucks had 150,000 employees in the United States, and roughly 300,000 globally. In comparison, two behemoth U.S.-based real estate firms, CBRE Group and JLL, have global workforces of over 75,000 each. Delivery of a real estate master’s degree program to such a corporate partner could be expected to have a relatively high participation rate, and to bring the same talent attraction, retention, and work culture benefits. Students develop connections in “class” that extend into the workplace and vice versa. Additionally, learning modules developed as part of the master’s program can be used throughout the company, since today’s in-class case study can become tomorrow’s corporate initiative. The benefits to the university partner might include privileged access to the operations, practices, and challenges of a global real estate company, as well as a source of experienced faculty/practitioners. Such partnerships would provide an ideal framework for forming practitioner/academic teaching teams where the best of experience, practice, pedagogy, and instructional design can all come together.

As another example, in 2013, leadership at the RICS recognized a gap in real estate and construction education in India, and partnered with an Indian university to open a new real estate and construction department on campus. RICS set the curriculum, funded the faculty, and employed the administrative and support staff. Graduates receive a degree from the home institution but also benefit from a co-branded RICS degree. RICS also coordinates the career management function, highlighted by interview days, with over 95% of graduates placed with sponsoring firms both in India and internationally. Today, more than 1,200 students have graduated from the undergraduate, master’s, and PhD programs now in place, rivaling in size the largest U.S. university real estate programs.

Associations as Universities

If the logistics of impact partnerships prove awkward, or accreditation issues prove an impediment, then there is another alternative for large real estate companies or associations: establishing their own stand-alone degree programs. A current example of this is Realtor University. Housed within the National Association of Realtors, and marketing itself as the only institution of higher education focused exclusively on the practice of real estate as a profession, Realtor University not only offers a fully accredited master’s degree in the field, but also possesses the world’s largest real estate library. Indeed, the growing acceptance of diverse educational and experiential credentials in the employment marketplace makes the value proposition of a master’s degree from a Real Estate Corporate University more plausible. Measurable outcomes from the educational program combined with the concurrent work experience may compare favorably to other combinations of education and experience. Real estate companies may wish to develop highly customized content tied to their strategic priorities, have teams working together on projects while learning, and also insure that employees advance through a formal real estate education program. University real estate faculty may find new corporate homes; conversely, such a program would also provide an outlet where the company’s leadership and subject matter specialists could share their experience and expertise. Professional associations could find affiliated roles, if not partnerships, in such a model, where outsourcing is to the corporation rather than to the university, with perhaps less administrative and governance hurdles obstructing the process.

Lifelong Learning

Another emerging concept in real estate education is the lifelong learning hub, which acknowledges that a degree does not signify an end but rather a milestone on a lifelong course of formal education, professional enrichment, and staying current with the field of real estate. Professional associations have made major strides toward providing resource centers and ever-expanding continuing education offerings, while the real estate industry is gravitating quickly toward enterprise learning systems that are transforming in-house training and education efficiencies. As noted earlier, professional associations have both the means and the incentive to ensure that real estate practitioners continue to grow professionally. For example, the Institute of Real Estate Management features an extensive library of property and asset management–related online modules that serve to keep members up to date. NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, provides on-demand webinars and courses developed by university real estate faculty and industry practitioners. The CCIM Institute, through its Ward Center for Real Estate Studies, offers 1- to 2-hour online modules on fundamental concepts such as understanding discounted cash flow analysis, as well as timely updates such as how the new tax law impacts commercial real estate. However, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) may serve as a model for ongoing future learning; it currently provides a Lifelong Learning Center at its world headquarters in New York City, featuring an executive learning series as well as an independent self-study program. The next logical step may be for universities to also provide learning opportunities and support beyond graduation, such as the model adopted by the Master of Science in Mathematical and Computational Finance program at Oxford University. Alumni of their degree program may register to attend individual courses within the degree at any point in their lives in order to update or broaden their knowledge base. Applying this concept to real estate, students may choose to take a class in sustainability where there may have previously been none available, or focus on a different area/concentration of real estate as their career progresses.

As can be concluded from this topic, a number of conference participants, but not all, felt that more interaction with the real estate industry is an essential change that should be made to the educational model. Indeed, in the coming years as learning pathways increasingly meander over one’s career, with numerous educational re-entry and exit points, not to mention expanded educational resources, many see opportunities for university real estate programs, professional associations, and the real estate industry—the real estate education trinity—to collaborate in innovative ways that can transform real estate education. This time of disruptive change in higher education during which real estate becomes less entrenched in the academy and ready partners are available in professional associations and industry may actually allow for greater license to innovate. The size and scope of the real estate industry alone lends credence to the argument that the market for real estate education remains underserved by the relatively few full-time university real estate faculty.

Working with Other Stakeholders

Alumni in the United States¹⁰ have a desire to “give back” to their alma mater, and real estate programs should tap into that impulse to strengthen their financial positions, with a special emphasis on enhancing their educational offerings. Alumni tend to get excited about clearly defined goals, as opposed to contributions for general purposes, especially when it comes to education of (future) employees.¹¹ Alumni want to see the reputation of the program where they studied improve, and the most tangible measure of that is well-qualified new graduates available for hire. The latter makes lives of the alum easier; hence, they tend to become more responsive to requests for funding for extracurricular activities and programs such as an Argus class, funds for the real estate student club, or a panel discussion series. By attaching the name of the alum who donated the money (if so desired by the alum), publicity is created not only for the alum, but also for the real estate program: Naming rights showcase the extra (free) activities available with the program and demonstrate that alumni are so happy with the program that they are willing to donate.¹²

Non-monetary contributions are equally important, such as serving on a panel of external specialists or interview coaching. The new real estate program developed at Fordham University takes this idea a step further: Every student in the program is paired with a mentor from the real estate industry whom they can use as a sounding board, and with whom they can meet on a frequent basis. The mentor functions as an introduction to the real estate industry for the student. Across Manhattan at New York University-Schack Institute of Real Estate, the program is staffed by mostly adjuncts who are alumni from this program. They provide the practically-oriented education that was discussed earlier in this paper, although, again, often without a sound theoretical basis.

How We Can Better Connect with (Prospective) Students?

It is a recurring theme that both students and employers are looking past the traditional lecture-based model of learning. According to Mulgan et al. (2016), four key factors drive the evolution of different modes of learning. They are:

• Students want to be useful in the world and make a difference: They want to do good.

• Students want to be better prepared for work and life and be readily employable.

• Technology—online learning makes it easier for students to access the traditional “information transfer” kind of courses, freeing up more time for engagement with others.

• There is a demand from society and communities to help solve real problems.

As Geurts (2014) observed, the ability of real estate education to adapt to these factors should positively impact engagement levels of future students. For example, for many older candidates seeking a master’s degree, the course delivery platform is a key factor. Required attendance for in-residence programs can range from inconvenient to prohibitive, both monetarily and personally. Unplugging from one’s family and friends, being geographically uprooted, and the expenses of a temporary residence, on top of tuition and associated program costs, and, perhaps most importantly, the opportunity cost of giving up a full-time job—all these factors can outweigh the perceived benefit of going through the program. Thus, we should be aware that future students will take different factors into consideration when looking for a program that most readily accommodates their personal needs and academic goals.

Moving Beyond the Transactional Perspective: Rebranding

Prospective students, especially those that return to school for a master’s degree, realize that real estate and real estate development impacts people’s lives in far more ways than just providing shelter. Live, work, and play in all forms require some kind of real property influence. In addition to housing, most, if not all of the goods and services that are available to society require some type of manufacturing, retail, office, medical, educational, recreational, or industrial type of facility in order to exist and do business. As true as this is, it is rarely recognized by society that real estate is playing a significant part in the quality of life for a community’s residents. The fact is that real estate, and real estate development in particular, has unfortunately been more broadly seen in a negative light—in some cases a very negative light. And there are many reasons for this negative perception—some of them real and some of them simply perceptions. However, those of us in education have the chance to begin to change the negative beliefs about real estate into a more positive viewpoint. One way to do that is to redefine real estate beyond its transactional nature. Although we do an excellent job of teaching the transactional aspects of real estate, today’s students are looking for more. Today’s students want to learn about how real estate can be transformative and deliver triple-bottom-line results and truly sustainable and regenerative solutions for neighborhoods and communities. It may be time to expand the traditional understanding and definitions of real estate, address the reputational issues of the industry, and redefine real estate education.

Given that prospective students want to make a difference, it seems that students today see real estate as an opportunity to impact community engagement and connectedness, health and wellness, and many other aspects of the built environment that do not typically translate into our traditional understanding of return on investment. More and more, we are seeing students today who are seeking educational programs that focus on integrated, holistic solutions for our buildings and neighborhoods. Whereas real estate development of the past was often seen as hurting communities, current students expect real estate solutions to heal communities, mend the social, economic and environmental fabric of our cities, and address the most challenging economic, environmental and social issues of our time. As educators, we have an opportunity to turn the negative perceptions about real estate around, and begin to express and engage in cross-sector integration strategies that address not only the important transactional elements of real estate but also the important transformational elements that can restore the economic, environmental and social health and wellness of our cities.

Unfortunately, the real estate profession and its educators seem to be far behind several of the other built environment professional education programs such as architecture, planning, and even construction management when it comes to getting on board with many of the new, more innovative perspectives associated with our field. In some real estate programs, even teaching basic elements of sustainability remains a suspect topic in the traditional curriculum. However, if we are to attract future students, real estate educators can no longer ignore the obvious trends influencing the real estate profession and the built environment.

Outlook

Forces are aligned that portend a future real estate educational trinity of universities, real estate professional associations, and the industry, for a redefined, more holistic curriculum. The professional associations have honed practice-oriented, niche-specific real estate resources and instruction but envy the status conferred by the university degree. Professional associations are penetrating more and more into the traditional space where universities operate, but universities should embrace this trend in order to thrive. Indeed, universities who promote research and strong credentialing would benefit from a lifeline into real estate learning and practice. The real estate industry is home to jobs and the experiential classroom but seeks talent and training resources tailored to their specific needs. The future of real estate education will include many new providers and delivery platforms competing to provide real estate education and training as well as an array of resources and credentials that will prompt a quantum leap forward in learning and career efficacy. At the center of this transformation will be collaborative models where universities, professional associations, and industry players cultivate real estate education at the intersection of academia and practice.

Looking out a quarter century, we may see that real estate students never enter a traditional classroom, that some of real estate’s most visible professors are compelling teachers who have extensive reach online and operate as free agents unattached to a single university, and that the cost of core instruction plummets. The distinctions among executive education, master’s level degrees, and practica will likely blur, as will the line between real estate faculty, consultants, and enterprise learning solutions. That future is conjecture, but we can predict based on the emerging examples of collaboration between university real estate programs, associations, and industry, that an exciting time of innovation and partnership is coming. And what is certain is that the demand for lifelong real estate learning will only increase, with the creation of learning hubs that provide continuing access to educational resources, updated content, just-in-time modules, and real estate fundamentals refresher courses becoming an increasingly critical part of the real estate education landscape. Finally, this model needs to be accurately branded in order to connect to prospective students. Universities with strong real estate alumni networks tout that strength, professional associations are the definition of a network, and large real estate employers can present a formidable network; collaboration where a student can combine all three extends connections dramatically.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kristin Wellner (Technical University of Berlin) and Arno van der Vlist (University of Groningen) for useful comments.

Notes

1 The nine components of the Education Track have typically been seven panels combined with two paper sessions. However, in some years there have been fewer or more sessions as the number of education papers submitted varied.

2 For example: Using Academic Research in the Classroom: How to Best Integrate It, Global Real Estate Education Around the World: Curriculum Comparison and Learning Experiences, and Sustainable Real Estate in the Curriculum.

3 For example: How to Best Engage the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Member, Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Real Estate Courses, and Real Estate Programs Outside the Business School: What is Needed to Call It a Real Estate Program?

4 For example: Fulbrights, Fellows and Funding: The International Experience, Stepping Up to Run a Department or Center, and Writing and Publishing a Successful Case and Teaching Notes.

5 For example: The Importance of Teaching: Engaging Different Learning Styles, Experiential Learning: The What, How and Why, and Effective Case Studies.

6 For example: E-learning Real Estate, How Does Technology Impact Real Estate Finance?, and Using Real Estate Technology in the Classroom: Big Data, Innovative Real Estate Databases, and Augmented Reality.

7 For example: Integration of Professional Organizations in the Curriculum, and Using Competitions, Technology and Professional Associations in the Classroom.

8 For example: Global Competency for Students, How to Teach Critical Thinking?, and Preparing Students for the Real (Estate) World: Financial Modeling, Business Writing, and Oral Presentations.

9 Among the 56 universities, 10 are international real estate programs and 46 are located in the United States.

10 This seems to be less so in Europe, although for example there exists the IMMOEBS, which is the joint alumni association of the real estate programs at the European Business School and the University of Regensburg, and the Technical University of Berlin has the REM Club.

11 Alumni tend to see research output as less tangible and/or status-enhancing unless it is something they can use and/or directly relate to. That is not to say that they are not willing to contribute to research endeavors, however obtaining their participation is more difficult.

12 Starting with small donations, a relationship can be built to ensure bigger donations in the future.