My Take On The Recent PRC Real Estate Broker Exam

The other Saturday was when we held the victory party of all those who passed the Real Estate Broker (REB) Licensure Exam. 

According to Papa, a shade over 50% of the number of examinees nationwide passed the exam. That is remarkable and though I’m happy with the outcome (I passed after all), let me give some inputs on how the exam should be.

I spoke to a practicing broker who took the exam back when it was still administered by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Back then, she said, the exam was in essay form. Also, the exams then sported a lower passing rate. For instance, for her batch, only 8 of 30 examinees nationwide passed it.

Of course, I’m not suggesting the reversion of the exam from its current multiple choice format back to essay type. The number of examinees now prevents that. But there are still ways to approximate the depth of knowledge being tested by the latter exam type.

But first, my suggestions:

No grammatical excuses

Papa had mentioned to me what Atty. Martinez told the examinees during a special review class prior to the exams. The speaker had told the class that the grammatical lapses and the syntax errors in the exam questionnaire should be considered as part of the exam. It was to be treated as such.

I beg to differ. With due respect to Atty. Martinez, a member of the board of examiners, I consider his explanation as an excuse for sloppy test making and non-existent proofreading. Moreover, his reasoning contributes to a culture of mediocrity which tolerates a lower standard of English that shouldn't be seen in a PRC exam and shouldn't be followed by future real estate brokers.

Being a first-timer, I had such a high regard for a PRC-administered board exam. But that respect was bent when I took the REB exam. The grammar was atrocious, the spelling was haphazard, the syntax required surgery. Even for an English major, I had a hard time deciphering some questions.

I was embarrassed by the test. Professionals don’t deserve to be subjected to a test like that, where elementary rules of the English language are thrown out the window.

I do hope that, in the upcoming exams, examiners will pay closer attention to what they put in the exam.

Testing Higher Levels of Knowledge

At first, I was relieved that there were only a few set of items in the exam centered on current affairs. But I also noted that most items merely focused on identification and checked on whether we knew this definition or that word.

This in itself is not wrong. But I am also envisioning an exam which not only tests an examinee’s body of knowledge but also his analytic skills. It’s interesting that, during the course of my review, there were a lot of areas which required analysis. The practice itself, real estate brokerage, requires professionals who can study situations as they are and dish out opinions, both legal and technical.

Limiting an exam to mere identification dos not do justice to the scope of the subjects. It merely recognizes people with high IQs and who can pore through pages and pages of material but it doesn't adequately reward those who are excellent negotiators and creative analysts, who can balance conflicting interests and reconcile these with the laws applicable. It negates the skills actually necessary for the practice in favor of skills which are best left in the classroom.

In sum, I hope for a more balanced exam, an exam which tests both the competence and knowledge of its examinees and also the skills necessary to put this knowledge into practice.

Doing Away with the Trivial in Favour of the Essential

Finally, we go back to what I touched earlier. Given the multiple choice format used now, how can we approximate the exam to match what was being tested when the exam was still in essay form?

I think the answer is simple. It only requires a change of emphasis to what is being asked. It involves a shift in the level of questioning and also a trimming of sorts.

I've discussed already the first option. What we need are questions which not only test our knowledge but also test our analytic skills.

The second option is more controversial as it involves doing away the items which form the core of almost every permutation of this exam. It means doing away with memorizing the many statutes and their corresponding R.A./P.B./P.D. numbers. It means doing away with memorizing the names of key people in PRC and/or in the AIPO. It also means doing away with memorizing dates save for the most critical (like the date of enactment of the Family Code which bears legal ramifications). It means doing away with questions on current affairs. 

These items are trivial since they can be looked upon at any given time without any serious consequence. These are not necessary in practice and not knowing these does not impinge on the competence of a real estate broker. For instance, I can know the law without having to know its title or number. I don't have to know the names of the people in PRC or in any related government agency for me to function effectively. Ditto for the dates of anniversaries, commemorations, etc. Finally, injecting a random question on current affairs does not even measure how up-to-date I am of the current state of the country (I read news every day by the way).

The problem now is that the exam questions gravitate towards these otherwise trivial stuff. I'm not one to speculate on the reasons why but I suspect that these questions are easier to ask hence their frequent use. I hope that, in due time, stripping the exam of these kinds of questions shall be mandatory. Only in this way can more meaningful, more relevant questions be asked in their place.