Review of the Texas A&M Masters of Land and Property Development (MLPD)

A long while ago I searched this forum for feedback on this degree. There ain't much. So I promised myself upon graduation, I would write a review.

>WHO THIS PROGRAM IS FOR

This program places in Texas. Houston primarily. Followed by Dallas, then San Antonio/ Austin. If you are trying to break into Real Estate Development in these areas, this is the degree to have.

80% of the focus is for land/ lot development for Residential. 20% is commercial. That is shifting with the addition of new faculty, but given the strengths of the program head, Tim Early (former Exec at Pulte Homes), that is where most of the knowledge lies. The career interest from fellow students seems to follow this path.

>ACADEMIC RIGOR

Some classes are easy, some are hard. Those who have spent time out of school in the workforce will have an easier time. This program is by no means a degree mill. There are students who have to stay an extra year to finish up. 

>COHORT

The majority of students are driven. That being said, there are a number of students who came straight out of undergrad who couldn't find their way out of a cardboard box.

>PLACEMENT

The top of our class got a spot a PE backed boutique firm, starting pay >100k. Your average student went to work for one of the major homebuilders (Pulte, Lennar, etc) in land acquisition (which is where most execs at these firms come up through). 

I should note that you need to be proactive in networking for a job. If you're on WSO, this shouldn't be a problem. Oddly though there are a number of students who expect a job to be handed to them upon graduation out of the sky. The program head tries very hard to get everyone placed regardless.

>MLPD vs. MRE (Texas A&M Master's of Real Estate)

If you're looking at doing the MLPD, you've probably also seen the MRE. Going in I did not see a clear distinction, but ultimately I believe I chose correctly.

The MRE places better in Brokerage and Finance. I can't speak for it's PE placement. You can still get a job in Development from this, as it has a good reputation in the state. The MRE is geared towards CRE. While some classes overlap (MLPD and MRE students will take some of the same courses), the classes unique to the MRE are less technical than the MLPD, and are better suited for a student unsure of the specific industry sector and role they'd like to enter. The MRE is, therefore, a generalist degree.

The MLPD is specific to developing land in Texas-- and is specialized to do that. You learn to talk intelligently with engineers, city planners, and other stakeholders. (ever heard of a MUD district? It's unique to TX, and only taught in this program). It was a little lacking in talking to investors and understanding the different way the capital stack may be assembled. The MLPD has less "academic" faculty, with many professors actively running their own firms, and if not that, they spent the majority of their careers actually in the workforce.

>PROS and CONS

I touched on a lot of these already, but here they are in a concise list:

PROS

1. Aggie network. Seriously. Everybody in this state has an aggie ring.

2. Specific and specialized to Land development, (and beyond that, weighted heavily to residential) 

3. Short degree. 1.5 years, with an internship. Many return to their place of internship.

4. Cheap tuition- I'm instate, so that changes things. If you can get residency (which I think happens quickly, I had only lived here a year) you save a ton of money

5. Majority of professors not academics. (why would you have someone who has spent their entire careers in a library is beyond me, but some of these programs do)

CONS

1. The program lives in the shadow of its big sister, the MRE. In fact, most people who hear I got a degree pertaining to real estate immediately think I got this.

2. Highly specialized. I put this in both categories because this is an extremely important consideration, and if you want to go work for Fortress or something, this might not be the best move.

3. Some freeloaders. I'd say 20% of the class were mouth breathing idiots. It's easy to apply, cheap, and can take people out of undergrad, so something like this is bound to happen. I will say though, that for every student who skipped class to go fishing, there was two who were actual superstars, and will go on to have incredible careers.

4. College Station. Working remote is easier in this day and age, but if you need to work full time, that might prove a challenge. I should note that it is possible to commute in from Austin or Houston, but it's tough. I heard a rumor that there might be a hybrid in-person and virtual option in the future, but I cannot confirm this.

5. Putting this here as a placeholder. If I can think of a 5th con, I'll make an edit/ comment.

Feel free to ask any specifics.