It is December 31, and so many of us are getting ready to party. Everyone is, except accounting bloggers and those who read their blogs. So as to give you something to do tonight while you sip your diet coke, you can reflect over the high points of The Summa.
Archive for December, 2009
I have occasionally written about the need for a professor to develop a mature worldview. More so than that, we all (whether professor, student, or professional) should consciously develop a world view. Yes, a world-view is a good thing. Although there are three accepted forms for spelling the term, it is not a difficult concept.
A worldview is one person’s mental model of his/her reality. It is a personal framework for organizing ideas, attitudes and theories about some aspect of the world in which a person lives. When viewed in its totality, it is a personal description of the way all things work.
When we are young and/or inexperienced, our view is limited because we haven’t seen that much of the world. Thirty two years ago when I first studied accounting, my worldview of accounting was pretty much limited to what was immediately in front of my nose (an only-in-front-of-nose-view). Likewise, thirty years ago when I taught my first accounting class, my view of the world of accounting education was very limited. It was not mature. Never-the-less, I had a mental model of sorts. Not a framework, it was more like a clothes hamper where I tossed my ideas and a few attitudes. Somewhere along the path of my life, I built a few theories for explaining how a few isolated things worked (I always had teaching tendencies). Eventually the clothes hamper was so crammed, disorganized and messy, I had to develop a framework for classifying and sorting everything. So I worked on it. And voilà–I had a worldview.
I’ve been asked to post a reading list for developing an accounting worldview. I can’t, because it doesn’t work that way. Here’s why.
I’m a senior accounting professor. The Summa is my expression of what and how I think about the world of accounting, i.e., the world according to Albrecht.
Why should anyone care? There are a few ways to answer.
One possible answer is because society has decided that there be professors. Professors-to-be are charged with studying in a discipline until such time as they are ready to teach others. What criterion or criteria signal readiness? I think it should be when he/she has sufficient understanding and wisdom to be able to teach students in the way they should go, or be. This is a pretty tall order. Over the years, I’ve claimed this is when a professor has a mature view on the way his/her part of the world works.
A second possibility is because it fits within a professor’s generally accepted professional duties. The consensus is that a professor has three primary areas of responsibility:
I’m busy with grading, so this is very brief. Over at AECM a discussion has been held about issues related to providing an accounting education within a context of a 150 semester hour requirement. I think re: The Auditors put something up on it a while back.
A lot has been written about the not-so-hidden agendas of corporate management, auditing firms, politicians and the SEC. Everyone is out to maximize their personal position, and no one is looking out for the public good. Certainly not execs (earnings manipulation, greedy bonuses), nor the Big 4 (IFRS adoption, exoribant fees for shoddy auditing), Obama (bargaining away GAAP for political gain), SEC ( favoring big business and polital agendas).
Now, it is extremely obvious that our accounting programs are birds of a feather! Many programs have shifted undergraduate accounting courses to the graduate level, and now charge an extra 50-100% premium for the same courses! And, with graduate admissions requirements serving as a barrier to entry, not all accounting students have equal access to essential accounting courses.
Why have our collegiate accounting programs done this? They’re money grubbing for extra tuition. Oh, justification is attempted by saying that the masters credential is important, that higher level thinking is provided in graduate curses, that there is value added in general.
Folks, I’ve been there and much of the time all these reasons amount only to so much BS. OK, there are some (a few) wonderful masters programs in accounting. There are many, though, that don’t provide sufficient value for the extra bucks being charged. I’m sure this comment is gong to make me very unpopular with my colleagues.
A year ago, I posted some links to videos and/or whatever that helped divert my attention from the depressing task of writing and then grading final exams. That page is still getting hits, but many of the links are broken. It is time for an update. Some of these links have some connection to business, accounting, or college. Most don’t. That’s why I’m recommending them.
Posted in Accounting, IFRS, Regulation, tagged Accounting regulation, Anti-IFRS, Chief Accountant, GAAP, IFRS, James Kroeker, Regulation, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2009 | 5 Comments »
Edith Orenstein, in her exceedingly well done FEI Blog, quotes SEC Chief Accountant James Kroeker as saying:
Kroeker outlined six general areas that the SEC would have to “carefully consider … fully understand and address” regarding the potential use of IFRS by U.S. companies. He added that this list is not all-inclusive. The six areas are:
- U.S. Investor understanding of and perspectives on IFRS;
- The development and application of IFRS for use as the single set of globally accepted accounting standards for U.S. issuers;
- The impact on the U.S. regulatory environment;
- Preparer considerations, including, among other matters: changes to accounting systems, changes to contractual agreements, corporate governance considerations, and litigation contingencies;
- Human capital readiness; and
- The role of the FASB in achieving the goal of a single global standard.
Kroeker noted, “I expect that you will hear more from us on this topic in the near term.”
It is so depressing to hear James Kroeker speak of #2 and #6, as it reveals the SEC’s continued fixation on a single global set of accounting standards.
A global accounting standard is both unwise and misguided. I’ve explained why many times. However, just in case today is the day Mr. Kroeker checks out my blog, I’ll explain it again.