Accounting Education: The Real
Facts about Who Teaches, Who
Studies?
Bruce Behn, David Leslie, and Susan Crosson
Front
page
news…….
Supply of and demand for
Accounting faculty
• The number of Accounting faculty has
declined.
• The number of Accounting students has
risen.
• The number of Ph.D.’s produced is lagging
far behind prospective retirements.
Table 1: Total number of faculty by type of institution, 1993 – 2004
Accounting
1993
2004
Rate of change
Research/Doctoral
4501
4100
-9%
4-Year
7400
6806
-8%
2-Year
8400
6800
-19%
Total
20301
17706
-13%
Other business
Total
+19%
All other fields
Total
+22%
Figure 24: Enrollment of (full-time) undergraduate and (all) graduate accounting students, by
type of institution, 1990 - 2000.
90
80
70
Number in 1000's
60
50
Total 1990
Total 2000
40
30
20
10
0
Res./Doct.
4-Year.
Public 2-Year
Figure 1b: Linear trends in transformed numbers (estimated) of Accounting faculty and
students, 1993 - 2008.
4.9
4.8
4.7
Transformed scale
4.6
Linear (Students 2-year)
Linear (Students4-year)
4.5
Linear (Faculty2-year)
4.4
Linear (Faculty4-year)
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
1993
1996
2000
2003
2008
Figure 14: Average annual production of Ph.D.s in accounting, 1980 - 2005
200
180
Average annual number of Ph.D.s
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1980–84
1985–89
1990–94
1995–99
2000-04
2005
140 PhDs in Accounting were awarded in 2008, per Survey of Earned PhDs.
The age profile of accounting faculty suggests as many as
500 – 700 retirements per year in the foreseeable future,
which, even if too high, suggests that there will not be
enough new Ph.D.’s to replace them one-for-one.
Plumlee’s (2005) survey of supply and demand for Ph.D.
accounting faculty estimates demand at 350 – 590 per
year between 2005 and 2007, and estimates there is
supply to fill abut 50% of that demand, with supply
unevenly matched to subspecialties.
Competition for Accounting talent.
• Half of new Ph.D.’s are foreign born.
• Salary inversion signals inadequate
supply, competing opportunties, less
attractive working conditions.
• Pay for non-tenure eligible Accounting
faculty outpaces that in other fields.
• Outside income, higher ratio of part-time
faculty point to competition for talent.
Table 7a: Income of all Accounting faculty with Ph.D. or 1st professional
degree, under/over age 45, 1993 (Inflated) – 2004[1]
Basic salary
from
institution
Total income
from the
institution
Total income of
respondent
from all
sources
N
45 and under
44,744.25
48,584.44
71,418.58
2500
46 and over
65,751.48
73,323.75
99,172.30
4200
45 and under
92,731.80
101,061.90
125,370.80
1500
46 and over
73,982.60
81,149.60
98,144.60
4400
Age in 1993
Age in 2004
[1] The age intervals were established to provide adequate cell sizes, given the NSOPF minimums.
Figure 17: Average base pay, full-time accounting faculty over and under age 41, 1993
(inflated) - 2004
90,000.00
80,000.00
70,000.00
Age 41 and under
Age 42 and over
60,000.00
Linear (Age 41 and under)
Linear (Age 42 and over)
50,000.00
40,000.00
30,000.00
1993 Inflated
2004
Figure 12a: Basic salary from institution, full-time NTE, 1993 (inflated) - 2004
60000
Constant dollars
55000
50000
Accounting
Other business
All other fields
45000
40000
35000
1993 Inflated
2004
Figure 12b: Basic salary from institution, part-time NTE faculty, 1993 (inflated) - 2004
13000
12000
Constant dollars
11000
10000
Accounting
Other business
9000
All other fields
8000
7000
6000
1993 Inflated
2004
Table 4: Tenure status of Accounting faculty by full- and parttime, 1993 – 2004
1993
Full-time Part-time
Total
Tenured or eligible
8110
90
8200
Not eligible
2263
9837
12100
Total
10373
9927 (49%)
20300
2004
Full-time Part-time
Total
Tenured or eligible
6419
281
6700
Not eligible
2191
8709
10900
Total
8610
8990 (51%)
17600
Figure 18: Average total hours worked per week reported by full-time accounting faculty at 4year institutions, '93 - '04
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
Hours worked '93
Hours worked 04
Figure 25: Trend in Student Credit Hour productivity by type of institution and full- vs. parttime accounting faculty, 1993 - 2004.
1600
Index of SCH production per faculty member.
1400
1200
1000
FTSCH93
FTSCH04
800
PTSCH93
PTSCH04
600
400
200
0
Res/Doct.
4-Yr.NonDoct
2-Yr.
Figure 20: Percentage of time reported on research, full-time accounting at 4-year
institutions, '93 - '04
22
Average percentage of time on research.
20
18
16
14
12
10
Time on research 93
Time on research 04
Figure 10a: Mean number of hours per week paid work NOT at institution, part-time NTE's.
35
30
Mean number of hours
25
20
1993
2004
15
10
5
0
Accounting
Other business
All other
Demographics changing
•
•
•
•
Accounting faculty aging.
Retirement rate accelerating.
Fewer males, more females.
High rate of entry by Asian-origin.
Figure 11: NSOPF estimated number (1000's) of male accounting faculty under age 40 and
over age 55, 1993 - 2004
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Under age 40
Over age 55
Linear (Under age 40)
Linear (Over age 55)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Males93
Males04
Figure 12: NSOPF estimated number (1000's) of female accounting faculty under age 40 and
over age 55, 1993 - 2004.
2.5
2
1.5
Under age 40
Over age 55
Linear (Under age 40)
Linear (Over age 55)
1
0.5
0
Females93
Females04
Figure 13: Mean years to retirement, full-time accounting faculty by type of institution, 19932004
19
Mean years to retirement
18
17
16
Res/Doct
4-Year
2-Year
15
14
13
12
1993YrstoRetire
2004YrstoRetire
Number of male and female Accounting facjulty, 1993 - 2004.
16000
14000
Number of Accounting faculty
12000
10000
Male93
Female93
8000
Male04
Female04
6000
4000
2000
0
Male93
Female93
Male04
Female04
P e r c e nt of P h. D . ' s by ge nde r , 2 0 0 8
70%
60%
50%
40%
% Femal e
% M al e
30%
20%
10%
0%
A l l f i el ds
A l l B usi ness
A ccount i ng
om A
pu cco
te u n
r s ti
O
th
1s
c i ng
er
e
t-p
so B nce
ro
u
ci
s
fe
a sin
si
on Oth l sc es
al er ie s
he ed nc
al u c es
th
a
sc tio
A
i
en n
ll
ot
c
Fo he Hi es
r
s
re
t
p
B ign ro ory
io
gr
lo la
a
gi ng ms
c
Po a ua
M
lit l sc ge
at
ic
s
he
al ien
c
m
s
e
at
En cien s
A
i
c
gr
g
s
c
ic
an ine es
ul
d
e
tu
st rin
re
at g
/h
om S isti
o
Te e cio cs
e
a
En c co lo
gl he no gy
O ish r ed mi
cc
c
u an uc s
O p a d l a ti
th ti ite on
er on ra
he pr tu
al og re
Ph
th
r
ilo
sc am
so
ie s
nc
ph
es
y
Ph an
L
ys d
a
ic re w
al lig
sc io
n
Ec ien
c
on e
Ps om s
yc ic
ho s
C
om F lo
g
m ine y
un a
ic rts
at
io
N ns
ur
si
ng
C
Percentage change
Figure 8: Change in ethnic composition of tenure-eligible faculty by teaching field, '93 - '04
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Change in %White
Change in %Black
Change in %Asian
Change in %Hisp.
Change in %Other
Over 40% of Accounting students
are in community colleges.
•
•
•
•
•
Mostly female.
Older.
Otherwise employed.
Diverse.
Higher “risk.”
Figure 1a: Enrollment trend, Accounting majors by type of institution, 1990 - 2008
250
Number reporting Accounting major, in 1000's.
200
2-year
150
4-year non-doctoral
4-year doctoral
100
50
0
1990
1996
2000
2008
Table 28: Gender of
Accounting majors (percent
female)
by
type
of
institution, 1990 - 2008.
1990
1996
2000
2008
2-year
68.5%
67.4%
77.8%
70.0%
4-year non-doctoral
56.9%
64.6%
63.1%
56.8%
4-year doctoral
52.6%
58.8%
51.4%
58.9%
Figure 18a: Age distribution of Accounting majors by type of institution, 2008.
Percent of students in age interval.
60
50
40
2-year
30
4-year nondoctoral
4-year doctoral
20
10
0
8
0 to 1
2
2
19 to
23 to
26
27 t o
30
31 t o
Age in years
34
35 t o
40
> 40
Figure 20: Work status of Accounting students while enrolled by type of institution, 2008.
60
Percent of students in indicated job status.
50
40
No job
Part-time
30
Full-time
20
10
0
2-year
4-year non-doctoral
4-year doctoral
Figure 17: Percent of 2-year Accounting students by race/ethnicity, 1990 - 2008.
80
70
60
Percent
50
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
All other
40
30
20
10
0
1990
1996
2000
2008
68% of Accounting students at 4-year institutions were White in ’08.
Figure 22: Cumulative number of risk factors reported by Accounting students by type of
institution, 2008.
45
Percent of students reporting risk factors.
40
35
30
25
2-year
4-year non-doctoral
4-year doctoral
20
15
10
5
0
e
n
No
e
On
o
Tw
ree
Th
ur
Fo
Fiv
e
Six
v
Se
en
CC faculty differ from 4year/research univ. faculty.
•
•
•
•
•
More part-time (2/3).
Increasingly female.
Otherwise employed.
Less likely to hold terminal degree.
More likely to have highest degree in other
field.
• Much heavier teaching load.
Table 6: Gender of community
college accounting faculty, 1993 2004.
1993
2004
Percent
change
Male
5300
3900
-26.4%
Female
2300
2800
+21.7%
Total
7600
6700
-11.8%
Percent male
69.7%
58.2%
Table 7: Part- and
full-time status of
community college
Accounting faculty
by gender, 1993 –
2004.
1993 2004
1993
2004
Percent
change in
part-time
faculty.
Part- Parttime time
Percent
change
in fulltime
faculty.
Fulltime
Fulltime
-16.4%
Male
3551 2968
-46.7%
1749
932
-8.5%
Female
1594 1459
+89.9%
706
1341
Figure 5: Age distribution of Accounting faculty in 2-year institutions by gender, 2004.
30
Percent of respondents in interval
25
20
Male
Female
15
10
5
0
0 to
30
31 to
34
35 to
39
40 to
44
45 to
49
Age in years
50 to
54
55 to
59
> 60
Table 11: Percentage of Accounting
faculty at 2-year institutions reporting
"other employment" than their
teaching job, 1993 - 2004.
1993
2004
Part-time
88.60%
72.70%
Full-time
34.50%
21.10%
Total
71.10%
55.20%
Table 15: Percent of Accounting faculty
in 2-year institutions holding indicated
highest degree, 1993 – 2004.
1993
2004
Ph.D. or 1st Professional
9.60%
11.22%
Master's
60.80%
70.47%
Baccalaureate or less
29.60%
18.31%
Table 17: Field of highest degree earned,
Accounting faculty in 2-year institutions,
1993 - 2004.
1993
2004
Accounting
51.3%
50.8%
Other business
31.6%
37.3%
All other fields
17.1%
11.9%
Figure 10: Mean number of classes taught by full-time Accounting faculty by type of institution, 1993 2004
6
Mean number of classes taught
5
4
2-year
3
4-year non-doctoral
Research/doctoral
2
1
0
1993
2004
Issues/Questions
•
•
•
•
Accounting faculty work harder,
Aging faster,
Replacing slower.
Becoming more female, more minority
(esp. Asian).
• Relying on non-core (not tenured, no
Ph.D., part-time, otherwise employed).
• Competing vs. other opportunities for
accountants.
• Foreign-born Ph.D’s?
• Clinical or technical vs. professional
content?
• Draw in allies to promote/support change,
revitalization of field?