Here's a link to that material on the California DRE's WebSite:

Requirements in lieu of Experience

Why should I care? Like many other jurisdictions, Vermont has a reciprocal relationship with California honoring their Broker's Licenses; so I've discovered that I've often had to "carry" some of these people when they come here . . . . and they don't bring any real experience with them.

So, when co-broking with one of these transplants, we wind up paying someone to make our job more difficult. Surprise, surprise! (It's a cruel world, isn't it?)

So do you go your entire life putting the cart before the horse?

The best advice anyone can give you is to take the sales associate/agent exam first. And then go practice being an agent for a couple of years and then take the broker's exam.

Please do tell us how you skipped ahead to the broker's course?

You are in no way ready to become a broker at this point.
If reading that hurts your feelings, well, it will be doing your customers a favor.

Barb, read Vermont's link two posts above yours. It's easy to bypass the salesperson's exam; anyone with so much as an undergraduate degree can do it.

I see nothing inherently wrong with bypassing the salesperson's exam...IF (and that's BIG "if") the applicant doesn't intend to practice independently. I'd much rather hire a newly minted (but inexperienced) broker than a newly minted (and equally inexperienced) salesperson to work in my firm. Here in CA, the salesperon's exam is a joke; three classes (one of which is so utterly worthless I was actually offended I had to study it) and a 3-hour, multiple-guess test hardly teach you anything. I would much prefer the model used in Colorado and a few other states, where ALL applicants are required to take the broker's exam, but can't practice independently for at least the first couple of years.

Andy, I read Vermont's post before I posted. I still think bypassing the agent level and going straight to broker is a mistake.

Of course, now I'll caveat that with this: it may depend on what state you're in.

Here in Oklahoma, you couldn't bypass the sales associate level if you wanted to, it's not allowed. Our sales associate exam is pretty thorough. The major difference with the broker exam is adding in more of state law and some on business structure.

From an Oklahoma standpoint, if a person can't do a sales or listing contract from start to finish - and I'm not saying it's not permissible to have questions, I'm just talking knowing all the fundamentals - then that person has no business becoming a broker.

And believe me, we have Realtors here who can't write a listing contract, a sales offer, a counteroffer worth a hoot. We have several who are not motivated enough to get photos of their listed property on the MLS.

Having said all that, yes, I think there are brokers here who should provide more oversight of their sales agents than what they do. (and we don't have any companies here with even 50 sales associates, so it's not like there are 2 or 3 hundred Realtors to be managed.)

if you meet the education requirements, and are confident you can pass the broker's exam, go ahead and do it. it would be silly to do the moron-level salesperson's exam first, and wait for two years. success is about making the most of your time. skip ahead whenever possible.