Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

The Importance of Mathematics Background and Student Performance in A Property Degree

Author/s: Graeme Newell, Girijasankar Mallik

Date Published: 1/01/2011

Published in: Volume 17 - 2011 Issue 2 (pages 313 - 328)

Abstract

This paper investigates the relative importance of a wide range of academic and personal variables that may impact on student performance in a property degree. In particular, the importance of the property students’ mathematics background and prior knowledge is assessed. Using a multi-year data set over 2006–2010, regression analysis (OLS) and quantile regression analysis are used to quantify the marginal learning effects of specific variables, including mathematics background. This issue is assessed at the overall property student performance level ( Grade Point Average (GPA) on completion of property degree) and at the individual property subject level (3 valuation subjects). Mathematics background is seen to be an important determinant of success in the property degree; particularly in the more advanced valuation subjects requiring cashflow analysis. The property education implications are also highlighted.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2011.11104330.pdf 14445921.2011.11104330.pdf (442kB)

Keywords

Gpa - Mathematics Background - Ols Regression Analysis - Property Student Performance - Quantile Regression - Significant Factors

References

  • Allen, M. and C. Carter (2007), Academic success determinants for undergraduate real estate students. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 10:149–160.
  • Becker, W. and M. Andrews (2004), The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Indian University Press: Bloomington.
  • Birch, E. and P. Miller (2006), Student outcomes at university in Australia: a quantile regression approach. Australian Economic Papers, 45:1–17.
  • Blake, A. and C. Susilawati (2009), An evaluation of how well undergraduate property students are prepared for commencing their careers. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 15: 204–224.
  • Chan, K., Shum, C. and D. Wright (1997), Class attendance and student performance in Principles of Finance. Financial Practice and Education, Fall: 58–65.
  • Cornish, S., Reed, R. and S. Wilkinson (2009), Incorporating new technology into the delivery of property education. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 15: 303–320.
  • Commonwealth of Australia (2009), Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System. CA.
  • DEEWR (2008), Review of Australian Higher Education. DEEWR.
  • Didia, D. and B. Hasnat (1998), The determinants of performance in the university introductory finance course. Financial Practice and Education, Spring: 102–107.
  • Ely, D. and L. Hittle (1990), The impact of math background on performance in managerial economics and basic finance courses. Journal of Financial Education, 19: 59–61.
  • Everist, L., Francis, V. and L. Armitage (2005), Student preferences for career mentoring in property and construction. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 11: 337–354.
  • Group of Eight (2009), Review of Education in Mathematics, Data Science and Quantitative Disciplines. Group of Eight: Canberra.
  • International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (2008), TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report. IEA: Boston.
  • Johnson, D., Joyce, P. and S. Sen (2002), An analysis of student effort and performance in the finance principles course. Journal of Applied Finance, Fall: 67–72.
  • Koenker, R. (2005), Quantile Regression. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
  • Koenker, R. and K. Hallock (2001), Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15: 143–156.
  • Mallik, G. and P. Basu (2009), Does high school mathematics improve student learning in economics in university? The International Journal of Learning, 16:15–20.
  • Mallik, G. and J. Lodewijks (2010), Student performance in a large first year economics subject: which variables are significant? Economics Papers, 29: 80–86.
  • Mallik, G. and M. Varua (2008), HSC mathematics results and tertiary success in quantitative units: an Australian experience. Australian Journal of Economic Education, 5: 1–10.
  • National Committee for the Mathematical Sciences (2009), A National Strategy for Mathematical Sciences in Australia. NCMS: Melbourne.
  • Newell, G., Susilawati, C. and S. Yam (2010), Student perceptions of the quality of property education in Australia: 1994–2009. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 16: 400–422.
  • NSW Board of School Education (2010), NSW HSC Participation Statistics (from NSWBSE website).
  • OECD Programme For International Student Assessment (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. OECD: Paris.
  • Page, G. (2008), Australian graduates’ perspective on their professional socialization. Australian and New Zealand Property Journal, 1: 561–570.
  • Sen, S., Joyce, P., Farrell, K. and J. Toutant (1997), Performance in principles of finance courses by students with different specialisations. Financial Practice and Education, Fall: 66–73.
  • Yam, S. and P. Rossini (2010), Effectiveness of project-based learning as a strategy for property education. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 16: 291–313.