Perspectives on the Proposal for a Generally Accepted Accounting Curriculum: A Wake-Up Call for Academics

Abstract

INTRODUCTION In the last century, the training and education of certified public accountants has been the subject of many debates and political struggles (Van Wyhe 1994). The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) prevailed in one very long-standing debate when a majority of its members voted in 1989 to require 150 hours of education for membership after the year 2000. While that vote did not actually affect whether an applicant hoping to take the Uniform CPA Examination is considered educationally qualified to do so, the vote set in motion legislative activity that has resulted in most states now requiring 150 hours of education either to take the CPA exam or to be licensed as a CPA. In a recent proposal related to the 150-hour rule, the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) attempted to change the curriculum requirements for CPA examination candidates. In this commentary I provide my interpretation of the influences that led NASBA to make its recent curriculum proposal (hereafter, the Proposal) and also led a majority of academics and practitioners to subsequently reject it. I then consider some lessons that academics might learn from NASBA’s ill-fated venture and raise questions that we must ask (and answer) if we are to constructively influence the future. I also address what the future holds for collegiate accounting programs. Will we have a generally accepted accounting curriculum set by external regulators with minimal input from educators? Such a possibility requires educators to re-examine seriously the mission of university accounting education and its interface with the needs of society and the accounting profession (which are not necessarily one and the same).