Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

The Quality of Property Education in Australia

Author/s: Graeme Newell

Date Published: 1/01/2003

Published in: Volume 9 - 2003 Issue 4 (pages 361 - 378)

Abstract

Using the Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA) student surveys, the quality of property education in Australia is assessed over 1994–2001. Analyses are presented for the seven property universities in Australia regarding good teaching and overall satisfaction, as well as the property discipline benchmarked against the property-related disciplines of accounting, building, business, economics, law and planning. High levels of student satisfaction are evident, although some concerns are raised over the teaching quality. Both teaching quality and overall satisfaction have improved in recent years. The ongoing implications for property education in Australia are also critically assessed.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2003.11104148.pdf 14445921.2003.11104148.pdf (615kB)

Keywords

Benchmarking - Gcca Surveys - Property Education - Student Satisfaction - Teaching Quality

References

  • Anderson, R. et al. 2000. Problem-based learning in real estate education. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education 3(1): 35-41.
  • Avdiev, R. 1994. Educating the land economist: a break with the past. The Valuer and Land Economist 33(4): 287-290.
  • Avdiev, R. 1995. Educating the land economist: preparing for the future. The Valuer and Land Economist 33(6): 461-464.
  • Avdiev, R. 2000. Golden apple or poisoned chalice: the influence of education on careers. Australian Property Journal 36(4): 270-272.
  • Black, R. and J. Rabianski. 2003. Defining the real estate body of knowledge: a survey approach. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education 6 (1): 33-54.
  • Boyd, T. 2000. CPD: change the product. Australian Property Journal 36(4): 279-282.
  • Cherry, R. and D. Dave. 1997. An application of outcomes assessments to measure effectiveness of graduate courses in a US business school. International Journal of Management 14(4): 646-653.
  • Cohen, P. 1980. Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: a meta analysis of findings. Research in Higher Education 13(4): 447-457.
  • Fischer, D. 2000. Is the valuation paradigm a paradigm. Australian Property Journal 36(4): 292-299.
  • Graduate Careers Council of Australia. 2001. The Course Experience Questionnaire. GCCA (miscellaneous copies): Canberra.
  • Haddad, K. 1999. Using the balanced scorecard for improving finance education. Financial Practice and Education 9(1): 92-102.
  • Manning, C. 2002. Improving real estate and other business courses through targeted student assessment. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education 5(1): 27-43.
  • Manning, C. and S. Roulac. 2001. Where can real estate faculty add the most value at universities in the future? Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education 4(1): 17-40.
  • McKone, K. 1999. Analysis of student feedback improves instructor effectiveness. Journal of Management Education 23(4): 396-415.
  • Newell, G. and C. Eves. 2000. Recent developments in property education in Australia. Australian Property Journal 36(4): 275-278.
  • Wagner, Z. 1999. Using student journals for course evaluation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24(3): 261-273.
  • Webb, J. 1997. A global view of real estate education and research. Australian Land Economics Review 3(2): 3-10.
  • Yu, S.M. 2001. New paradigms in real estate education. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal 7(2): 79-88.