next »

[psyche74]

Because I really wanted to know which PhD programs were considered the best, but had such a difficult time finding any such rankings when I was trying to decide which programs to apply to, I am listing these here. The Chronicle Forums pop up pretty regularly in search engines, so hopefully this information will be easier to find for others.

"In ranking Ph.D. programs, survey participants named Ph.D. programs they had the most regard for in turning out quality accounting professors." (links below)

Public Accounting Report
27th Annual Professor’s Survey — 2008
Top 25 Doctoral Programs

2008      2007      2006       2005   
Rank      Rank       Rank       Rank   
1           3           4           4           University of Chicago
2           4           3           3           Stanford University
3           6           6           5           Wharton
4           1           1           2           University of Texas-Austin
5           2           2           1           University of Michigan
6           5           5           6           Univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
7           12         10          NR         Cornell University
8           7           9           9           University of Washington
9           16         13          12           University of Iowa
10          18         13         16           Harvard University
11          21         16         22           University of Georgia
12          10         11         10           University of Southern California
13          14         23         NR           MIT
14          11         18         13           Pennsylvania State University
15          NR         NR         NR           University of Mississippi
16          NR         NR         NR           Oklahoma State University
17          17         18         16           Ohio State University
18          15         22         18           Texas A&M University
19           7           8           8           Indiana University Bloomington
19          25         NR         NR           University of Missouri-Columbia
21          19         21         20           University of Wisconsin-Madison
22          NR         NR         NR           University of South Carolina
23          NR         NR         NR           Florida State University
23          7            6           7           UNC at Chapel Hill
25          25         NR         NR           University of Rochester
25          NR         NR         NR           University of South Florida


http://mason.wm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/9FBF1593-76E8-4B08-94E0-E088F1E36A14/0/PublicAccountingReportFacultySurveyResults.pdf

http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/pressreleases/par_06.pdf

[acctgphd]

Interesting post.  It seems like that Indiana and UNC dropped significantly in 2008; I wonder why that is? 

[psyche74]

I have wondered as well...and kind of discounted the drop as a temporary aberration. But maybe that's because I chose to apply to those two schools :) It's good to see that the top six have always been in the top six.

[daw44]

BYU has developed a new accounting ranking.  It ranks accounting programs by the research output of faculty and ranks Ph.D. programs by the research output of program graduates.  It also ranks by topical area (AIS, audit, financial, managerial, and tax) and methodology (analytical, archival, and experimental).  You can find the rankings at http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/. 

[musea]

Thanks for posting the additional rankings, daw44.  The information about the output of graduates from individual programs creates a more balanced picture for ranking programs, in my view.

I wonder what some of the more senior forum members think about ranking programs in this way...

[psyche74]

Unfortunately, unless the publications are to the top 3 or maybe 4 journals, they are meaningless (at least to the top programs). At UIUC, if you don't get into JAR, TAR, JAE, or possibly CAR, it doesn't count. Research output has to be top tier to get tenure or to be accepted into a tenure track position. Looking to see who is publishing in these journals is probably the best way to get a sense of which programs have the strongest players and how many they have.

[musea]

Unfortunately, unless the publications are to the top 3 or maybe 4 journals, they are meaningless (at least to the top programs). At UIUC, if you don't get into JAR, TAR, JAE, or possibly CAR, it doesn't count. Research output has to be top tier to get tenure or to be accepted into a tenure track position. Looking to see who is publishing in these journals is probably the best way to get a sense of which programs have the strongest players and how many they have.

I think your point about the emphasis placed on publications in top journals by top programs in determing tenure and promtion is fair, Psyche.  The methodology, however, seems to be quite exclusive in what it counts as a publication.  If you take a look under "PhD Program Ranks", it shows the 11 journals they count publications from in determining the rankings and indicate a high correlation between the rankings obtained using only the top 6 journals and the 11 they eventually used.  It seems like a rigorous way of determing program strength.  There are also some RU/VH and RU/H universities (desirable places to work) which count publications from top discipline-specific journals (BRIA, JIS, JMAR).  I got a rather detailed lecture on the variety of tenure and promotion standards from a professor on one of my interviews; you'd be surprised how they vary between locales. 

As an aside, declaring research not published in top journals to be "meaningless" might be seen as offensive to those producing it. 

[daw44]

Unfortunately, unless the publications are to the top 3 or maybe 4 journals, they are meaningless (at least to the top programs). At UIUC, if you don't get into JAR, TAR, JAE, or possibly CAR, it doesn't count. Research output has to be top tier to get tenure or to be accepted into a tenure track position. Looking to see who is publishing in these journals is probably the best way to get a sense of which programs have the strongest players and how many they have.

In my experience, more and more schools are expanding the list of top tier journals they include--especially if those schools have people who do research other than financial archival.  I know most of the big State schools are starting to accept the top 6 (TAR, JAR, JAE, CAR, RAST, and AOS) as equivalent "A" hits and many give credit for the next tier if the author has some top tier publications. 

Also, we have run the rankings with only the top tier, and the results, on average, are very close to those reported.  A few individual schools vary, but if you look at it as "buckets" (e.g., top 15, next 15, etc.) then the results are very stable. 

What's funny about these rankings is we get half the world criticizing the rankings for including too many journals and the other half criticizing them for not including enough journals!  Hopefully they are useful, although I recognize they are not perfect.

[psyche74]

As an aside, declaring research not published in top journals to be "meaningless" might be seen as offensive to those producing it.  

I totally didn't mean to imply *that.* Goodness knows I use so much of what is published in a wide variety of journals when I am researching. I only meant that for tenure purposes or job seeking purposes at the top institutions, they seem to disregard publications outside of those they consider top tier. And, as mentioned, those 'top' journals do vary from school to school (though I think the most prestigious schools have a general agreement about what they consider the top journals.)

[psyche74]

Also, we have run the rankings with only the top tier, and the results, on average, are very close to those reported.  A few individual schools vary, but if you look at it as "buckets" (e.g., top 15, next 15, etc.) then the results are very stable. 

I don't suppose you have those results available on the web...? I would be really interested in seeing the top 5 schools in each area as evaluated by publications in the top 3 or 4 journals. I like the general format of your ranking system, though. I'm interested in managerial, and that is a pretty small area, so it's great to be able to see which schools are more prolific in that area of accounting research.

And I hope AOS gains more and more acceptance. I think it's one of the most interesting journals to read.

[daw44]

Sorry, we haven't posted those "other" (ranks by just top 3/4 journals) online.  We'll think about it. 

Another post this community may like is tenure benchmarking data.  Since a previous reply said something about what pubs are used for tenure, take a look at http://byuaccounting.net/tenure/.  It's based on a paper I did that was published a few years ago, but does a good job of quantifying what it takes to get promoted (obviously there are other factors, but this helps quantify the research dimension).  We are updating this paper and hopefully will have new data available at the end of the month. 

[psyche74]

Update to the BYU rankings: they now offer custom rankings where you can specify the top journals (among other things). You'll find the link here: http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/univrank/custom_rank.php

This is my new favorite ranking tool for Accy programs.

[tier1capital]

Update to the BYU rankings: they now offer custom rankings where you can specify the top journals (among other things). You'll find the link here: http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/univrank/custom_rank.php

This is my new favorite ranking tool for Accy programs.

This is a great resource!  Thanks for the information.