We continue to hear the rumblings of how our industry will continue to change, and some even predict it will all but evaporate entirely.  That is probably too severe, but I believe it is definitely headed toward being the Wal-Mart of professions.

It has been obvious to me for a very long time that our standards have been compromised by agencies who have hired salespeople based primarily on two things 1) if they have a license and 2) who their sphere of influence is.   Whether the applicant has any talent, is dedicated to being an ethical agent, etc., are far down on the list of qualifications. 

The idea is essentially kin to the way debit life insurance companies have traditionally hired agents: Bring ‘em in, let them sell a policy to all of their relatives and friends, if they succeed after that, good...if they don't at least we got the new business they wrote on their family and friends.

I read some of the absurd pontifications on Active Rain by pseudo-professionals, and I want to scream, "Who taught you that junk? You have no earthly clue what you're talking about!"  My sadness comes because they actually think they know what they're talking about.

An agent in one state has recently written more than a handful of all but illiterate messages in the Questions and Answer section saying that the laws of her state prohibit people licensed elsewhere from discussing how to buy and sell real estate in her state.  She always reminds us that we aren't attorneys.  What is she talking about? How is this applicable? No one of the those who have responded seems to be discussing real estate law, they are discussing how to solve a problem.

Most of how one should approach real estate transactions, whether as an agent or as a participant in the transaction, is from a business standpoint.  The business points are the ones that must be thought through, not some cockamamie state laws that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

I would, therefore, like to see it become an NAR policy that local associations must offer continuing education courses, say GRI and so forth, and that their successful completion is required for any member to renew his membership.  The cost of these courses should be built into our dues, and should be under the auspices of the association, not the XYZ Real Estate School. 

And this type of education should continue for as long as a person is a Realtor.  It's education that molds business principals so that they include an equal portion of real estate principals and law.  Now the Realtor is able to thoroughly think through a situation and offer an educated answer.  That's what we want to claim we do now, but the facts are among many agents it is sorely lacking.

If we were to redirect our professionalism in the direction of required continuing education, it would be proof to the public that a quicky course in real estate for a license, and a few hundred bucks for membership in the local association of Realtors, is not all that we have to offer them.  And it would also likely shore up the value of having a Realtor involved in every real estate transaction, because the value would really be there.

I believe this is the way to side track the Wal-Mart-style profession from coming into being.  It is not by complaining, lobbying and filing one lawsuit after another.  Why?  Because that tactic is going to fail.  It's already on its way down the slippery slope.