When I was in grad school studying architecture and real estate, the Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center used to run a regular lunch series with real estate executives. The way it worked is that executives would come in to the school and 15 or so students -- all of whom were studying real estate -- could sign up to have lunch with them in a boardroom. I can't remember if the school provided us lunch or we had to bring our own, but either way, you had an hour to hear them talk about the industry and ask them whatever you wanted to know.

One time somebody asked a question about what courses they should take outside of their business and real estate classes. And I'll never forget what the executive said. His recommendation was to take courses that were as far away from business, finance, and real estate as possible. He said take fine art history classes, learn about ancient civilizations, or whatever. Just take classes that force you to think a little differently than everybody else.

The reason, I think, this resonated with me so much was because I had a certain amount of academic insecurity at that moment in time. I was coming from an architecture and design background and my classmates were former investment bankers and management consultants, all of whom had a far better grasp of "the numbers" than I did. It meant that real estate recruiters didn't want to talk to me because I was the square peg for their round hole.

But being a square peg really motivated me.

I remember walking into the program director's office at that time and requesting that I be put into what was considered to be the more difficult real estate finance class offered at Wharton. He said that he didn't recommend it. Non-MBAs (which I was at the time) can't typically handle it. And if he put me into it, I would likely come back to him crying about how hard it was. I asked him to put me in it and said that I would come back to show him my "A." He put me in it and, yes, I got an "A."

But at the end of the day, the point that this executive was making at the lunch was that the math and mechanics behind things like cap rates, IRRs, and DCFs is not rocket science. Real estate is not rocket science. You of course need to know how this stuff all works, but it is not the be-all and end-all. The other critical parts of this are more art than science. What are the assumptions that I am making as part of my analysis? What do I believe about the future of the world? To answer these questions, you need think critically and laterally. And having a different perspective can help you do exactly that.

This was true back in 2008 and it's still true today.

My good friend Taya Cook (of Urban Capital) and her development partner Sherry Larjani were featured in the New York Times today as a result of their Reina project and their remarkable efforts to gender balance the male-dominated commercial real estate industry. I am thrilled that their work is getting the attention that it deserves.

Here's an excerpt:

That’s because, despite progress in many other professional realms, women remain severely underrepresented in real estate development and investment, particularly in senior roles.

Women held just 4 percent of senior investment roles at major real estate firms, according to a widely circulated 2011 study, and their numbers have improved only “marginally” since, said the study’s author, Nori Gerardo Lietz, who is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and a longtime real estate investor.

Ms. Lietz reviewed the senior ranks of 82 major real estate investment firms for the study, as well as many more private equity and venture capital firms, and found that women were noticeably absent from the most highly paid, “touch the money” jobs.

For the full article, click here. And for more on Reina Condos, click here.