My experience with doctoral rankings (especially accounting)

Question

Based on a discussion going on in this thread:  https://gmatclub.com/forum/evaluate-my-profile-pls-77937.html , I thought it'd be interesting for everyone to have an open discussion on the issue of rankings, and provide my experience with it.

PART I: WHAT DO THOSE RANKINGS MEASURE?

The conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't trust rankings blindly, but that somehow there has to be some truth to them. As anyone with research experience knows, the methodology is extremely important, and my experience is that most people looking at rankings do not make the effort to figure out what the "rankers" are actually trying to measure.

Case in point: the Financial Times doctoral program ranking. I've seen it cited so often that I cringe, since this ranking is mostly based on the number of graduates from a PhD program. Big school = good school? Don't think so. Manchester Business School is #1 in the 2008 FT PhD ranking, and Rotterdam School of Business is #4. Rochester is #57, Cornell #63, Yale #65. Very much sounds like crap.

So how should you rank PhD programs? There are plenty of research papers and surveys out there, which I guess you can categorize in two areas based on the two most important tasks someone graduating from a PhD program will have to accomplish (the large majority of PhD graduates stay in academia): teaching and research. There are teaching-oriented papers, mostly reputational surveys, such as Public Accounting Report (mentioned in the above thread). These provide schools that will "produce" the best teachers our of their PhD programs. Whether that is due to the actual quality of the PhD program, or to self-selection, is unclear from those studies. Then there are countless research-oriented papers, looking at a combination of (1) research productivity/impact from past PhD graduates from that school, (2) research productivity/impact from past and/or current faculty at that school, or (3) quality of initial placement of past PhD graduates from that school, where I guess quality of placement is measured by some other factor, usually (2). These rankings will provide evidence as to which PhD programs will "produce" the best researchers. Obviously, these two types of reports measure two very different dimensions of what it means to be a university professor and as such lead to very different top schools.

I would argue that self-selection plays a very important role in the "teaching quality" results of the PAR and others. Suppose you want to become a great teacher. You can be a great teacher at Wharton or at Idaho, so it doesn't really matter where you go to school, so you'll apply for both Georgia (top school for teaching, not good for research) as well as Wharton (top school for both). Suppose someone else wants to become a great researcher. Chances are your training and exposure to top research will be better at top research universities like Wharton than it'll be at Idaho, so he/she'll apply at Wharton, but not Georgia. So the competition at Wharton is tougher than Georgia (I am sure this is a fact as well -- look at, say, the average GMAT score of admitted applicants at both schools), and the people who enroll at (and graduate from) Georgia will be more interested in teaching. So to me it's no surprise that survey evaluating the top PhD programs for producing great teachers are state schools with significant public accounting programs and where learning accounting standards and teaching them properly are highly valued.

I guess my point is that if you're mostly interested in research you should mostly consider the research rankings, and it may be counterproductive to attach too much importance to the teaching rankings.

PART II: IMPERFECT MEASURES = AVERAGE THEM OUT?

It's a fact of econometrics that if you have two observed measures (say, 2 rankings) that are imperfectly correlated with an unobservable characteristic (PhD program quality), you may be able to tease out the noise by averaging them out. This only makes sense if you think the observed measures are shooting for the same unobservable. Taking the example from part I, if you make an average from a teaching ranking and a research ranking you may end up with completely different schools (one that values teaching, the other that values research) with the same score, and you may have a school that's a great teaching school and a terrible research school ahead of another school that's good but not great in both respects.

PART III: MY ACCOUNTING PHD RANKINGS

When I applied to Accounting PhD programs almost 5 years ago, I decided I was interested in both teaching and research, so I wanted to get to the best possible research school to keep my options open (e.g. I could always go to a teaching school after the PhD from a research school, in fact that's what I'm doing right now). Everyone seemed to consider that there was a strong correlation (but still imperfect) between the general reputation of the business school and the quality of its PhD program, so I used the 3 most widely used general b-school rankings (Financial Times, Business Week, USNWR) to create a "general" ranking, along with 3 accounting research papers measuring slightly different dimensions (Robinson and Adler, and 2 Brown and Robinson papers, I didn't note the actual references but could look them up if you wanted) to make a "research" ranking. I then aggregated the 2 rankings for a "school-wide" ranking that went from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). (This poses the problem that I identified in part II, but still may be a start.) Stanford got 100, Wharton 95, Yale 78, Florida 46, U. So. Carolina 25.

Because I was interested in the best PhD programs, not just the best schools, what I did with those school-wide scores is the following. I looked at all accounting faculty members at the top 35 schools according to my ranking, and noted where they got their PhD. That allowed me to rank PhD programs: if a Rochester graduate is now at Stanford, that's 100 points for Rochester. I summed up all those points for everyone in the database (and then everyone who received his/her PhD since 1990). Here are the results:

Best PhD program (overall)
1. Stanford
2. Michigan
3. Chicago
4. UC-Berkeley
5. UT-Austin
6. Cornell
7. Rochester
8. Ohio St.
9. Harvard
10. CMU
11. NYU
12. Illinois (UIUC)
13. Kellogg (Northwestern)
14. Wharton (Penn)
15. Iowa
16. Minnesota
17. Michigan St.
18. Penn St.
19. UNC
20. U.Washington

Best PhD programs (since 1990)
1. Michigan
2. Stanford
3. Chicago
4. Harvard
5. Wharton
6. Cornell
7. UC-Berkeley
8. Rochester
9. NYU
10. Kellogg (Northwestern)
11. Iowa
12. UT-Austin
13. Penn St.
14. Minnesota
15. CMU
16. UNC
17. MIT
18. Columbia
19. U.Washington
20. Illinois (UIUC)

18 schools make both lists.

I guess I could provide the full database if anyone wanted it. Feel free to comment; I never meant this to be scientific in any way, or even published on this forum. I just thought that might be a helpful reference.

cabro57 · Answer

Let me clarify a few things.

1) All PhD programs are intended for people who will stay in academia after they graduate, and as such are for people willing to both do research AND teach. Tenure criteria at almost every school also reflect that -- you need to have published 'good' research to get tenure, and you need 'good' course evaluations to get tenure. However, because sometimes to publish better quality (or quantity) research you need to cut back on course preparation, sometimes you need to make a choice between the two. As a result people are forced to make choices as to whether they value an article in an 'A' journal more than better case studies in Corporate Reporting 201, and those who run business schools (and accounting departments) have their own biases as to which is more important: teaching or research.

2) It's not so much a question of formal program requirements and structure (so will normally not show up on program websites), but a question of culture. I should shortly receive a PhD from a school that had a teaching requirement as well as (obviously) various research milestones as formal requirements to receive the degree. No matter how poorly I could have fared during my (1-semester, 1-class) teaching requirement, I would still get my degree if the research is good enough. However, I had to make many corrections on my research papers to get a 'pass' while some of my summer papers may have been good enough for a dissertation at some (much lesser) schools. Other schools might have the same requirements on paper, but would need a minimal student evaluation score to pass the teaching requirement, or may require the student to teach every year for the last 3 years of the program.

3) I did not divide programs in any way; if you look at my rankings, there is only one list. I used Georgia as an example even though I actually know very little about the program (it is not well-known for research, maybe I should have said "not well-known" instead of "not good") because it was ranked in the Public Accounting Report's top PhD programs at the time. I'd be surprised if the formal requirements at Georgia blatantly said that teaching was more important than research, and as someone going through that program you might not feel that is the case. What I said is that what makes someone a good teacher can in part be taught during a PhD program, but a larger part is the result of that person's personality and natural abilities (communication skills). On the other hand, nobody will become a great researcher by him/herself, so the best and toughest PhD programs for research will offer better training than the lesser ones.

Hope this helps!

jsslvtt · Answer

Cabro, could you tell us what you had for experience when you applied to PhD programs? Did you have a graduate degree, work experience, published articles, etc.? Which programs did you apply for, and during the application process did you recognize anything about your profile that the schools were especially interested in? On your list of top schools, which ones did you apply for?

I am interested in getting a PhD. I am have applied to Macc programs, but am curious as to whether it would be beneficial to go to a non-ranked, state university that would give me scholarships and an assistantship which would maybe allow me to do research with some of the professors and also participate in some way with undergrad level courses OR go to a higher ranked school where I would just get the degree?

Long question/statement.... but hope you can provide some insight.

Also, I would love to eventually do research and teach at a top university, but I am not necessarily limiting myself to top universities. I would like to just be able to get a job at a good university in the area I would like to live (wherever that ends up being). However, more important than improving my resume to the point that I could get in anywhere, is that I would like to get in as soon as I graduate with my Macc.

What do you think is the best way to focus my efforts?

My Gmat is 710, and I have a 3.8 from a (unknown) state university in accounting, but no published papers.

What do you think?

cabro57 · Answer

You got many questions in there!

I had an MBA from a 2nd tier Canadian university + 4 years experience in a regional accounting firm + 1 1/2 years of teaching experience at the advanced undergrad and Macc level. No articles or research experience whatsoever. I also had limited math/econ stuff -- I had 2 calculus courses + a linear algebra course done, plus two basic microecon courses at the undergrad level, and obviously some stats courses (had a BBA). I countered that a bit with a 760 on the GMAT. So my strengths were that I knew what accounting was about, having worked and taught that. Throughout the application process I sensed that was my biggest asset (many other applicants have literally no clue about accounting), and I guessed whoever took a chance on me would hope I'd be able to go through the PhD math and quant stuff, which was probably my biggest weakness. I won't go into great detail in my applications process but basically I applied to 5 schools, 4 of which I only hoped to get into, and 1 safety. I got offers from 3 schools including the safety school. My guess is that you should be able to get assistantships anywhere (if by that you mean being a TA for undergrads, or an RA), but I don't know any particular Macc program. If you go to BYU or USC you'll always be a BYU or USC graduate, but I don't think you should underestimate the importance of doing well in whatever courses you take, and picking those courses well. My impression is that a solid accounting background helps, and if you get that from a reputable school that's great, but if you have successfully taken courses like Microeconomics, Game theory, Econometrics, Linear algebra, and so on, that's even better. I can't see why you couldn't get into a PhD program right after (e.g. in the fall) you finish your Macc. I think there are quite a few "PhD-track" programs out there such as BYU's, so that you can get a Macc while taking some research-oriented electives taken from the list I posted above. As many have said around here, it's not really important to have a Macc to pursue a PhD program in accounting. Few people at the top research universities even have an accounting background. The big part is that you make sure your profile emphasizes your dedication toward getting a PhD, doing research, and working in academia.

sphere3617 · Answer

thank you for creating this thread, I'm currently looking for PhD programs to apply so this helps a lot.

Currently I'm finishing up the master program in accounting with a GPA of 3.86 (4.0 accounting GPA). My undergrad GPA is 3.94 (4.0 accounting GPA). My GMAT score is 690. I'm planning on taking the GMAT again since I didn't prepare much for the exam the last time (only 2 weeks). I don't have any work experience yet since I went straight from undergrad to grad school. It's hard for me to get a job after finishing grad school because of the economy (I'm also an international student).

I really like doing research work, especially on the financial reporting aspect as well as the effect of accounting on the financial markets. According to what I read from the previous posts, I realized that a good accounting phd program for me would have to have well-known professors in the research areas that I'm interested in. Can you suggest any professors or schools?

I want to get into the top ten school because I believe that I can accomplish more in a challenging environment. What kind of GMAT score should I get in order to be competitive among other applicants, taking into consideration my situation? Is there anything else I can do to make myself more competitive?

Thanks!

cabro57 · Answer

I won't suggest a specific list. "Top ten" is really pretty good, but it all depends on what you want to do. The subjects you highlighted are very common, mostly because they are very broad. I'd suggest you take rankings such as B-week MBA rankings (or mine), take at the top 30 (or so) schools, and look at research interests of the faculty there: what they've published, what their working papers are, etc. You'll find out most of them work on financial reporting and its effects on the stock market to some extent, but their work can be about financial analysts, accruals quality, information risk, liquidity risk, balance sheet/income statement classification, compensation, and so on. You'll find what you like most in there. A big part of both what you learn and what kind of job market candidate you will look like will ultimately hinge on your dissertation chair, not the school (as opposed to an MBA or Master's in accounting like you did).

GMAT score is always kinda tricky; from what I understand some schools have a set threshold, under which they'll disregard your application altogether, and over which it doesn't really matter unless it's 790. For "top 10" 690 is not enough, and for someone with an accounting background as opposed to math or engineering (e.g. tougher quant), 750 may be enough to warrant further examination, but not enough to ultimately get an offer.

Other things you may want to do to improve your profile are things I've mentioned many many times in this thread and others -- take grad level courses in econometrics, microeconomics, game theory, calculus/linear algebra (undergrad level may be alright for those, just not "calc I"). Basically your profile is good and there's a way to make your SOP sound sincere but people will be concerned about your ability to become a good math geek, which you need a lot of at the PhD level.

phdhope · Answer

A new paper has come out ranking accounting progams based on the research productivity of their graduates. It can be found here: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1574502. Sort of interesting results huh?

cabro57 · Answer

Interesting indeed, thanks for the link.

Two comments on that new paper, otherwise a good read:

1) The term "productivity" in the title is misleading. Rankings are based on the number of articles published in selected journals by PhD alumni in the first few years after graduation. Big schools who churn out more graduates (Michigan, UT-Austin) will mechanically show up higher than smaller programs (Columbia, UBC). To me "productivity" is related to how many resources are used to get that outcome, and the paper doesn't adjust for that. They do report the number of grads who published at least 1 article for each subfield, but not the total number of graduates, so you can't really completely adjust.

2) Overall ranking is useless; to use it if you want to do an accounting PhD but don't know in what field would be a huge mistake. Even though they publish rankings for all topical areas (audit, tax, financial, etc) and methodologies (analytical, empirical/archival, experimental), the authors' main interest was really in some particular subfields (namely audit, tax and AIS). To get a larger sample size, they added to the usual top (e.g. "A" rated) journals (TAR, JAR, JAE, AOS) to include journals that publish more heavily in those areas, even though these journals are usually considered as "B" journals. Nothing wrong with that when it comes to subfield/topic rankings. However what this does is that the overall ranking is useless -- it includes some of the "A" journals (but not all -- many top financial accounting and/or analytical/theory faculty publish in papers like JofF, JFE, even JPE, Econometrica, Management Science..) and some "B" journals (but none in the most populated subfield -- financial accounting).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the overall ranking favors schools whose programs are targeted to specific subfields that are overrepresented in the study (Arizona, UNC, Arizona State, Kent State), and penalizes programs with underrepresented subfields (financial accounting and analytical research), whose "A" outlets include non-accounting journals and whose "B" outlets were not included.

phdhope · Answer

Some other interesting links on accounting rankings from the same people who published that earlier paper. https://byuaccounting.net/rankings https://ssrn.com/abstract=1604545

phdfinance · Answer

Hi Cabro, I am from India and want to get into a good phd program in finance. Request your feedback and suggestions on schools.

I hold a Masters degree in Mathematics from IIT (one of the top schools in India) with a CPI of 9.3/10, I was a topper in my batch. I gave GRE in 2008 an got a score of 1430 (800 on quant and 630 on verbal). I have 4 years of work exp in Analytics. I applied for fall 2009 but couldn't get an offer. I had applied to top US B Schools - Wharton, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Columbia, Duke, Cornell, Rochester etc. I attributed my faliure partly to recession and not being from Finance background. To improve my application I took FRM and got certified in April 2010, I have also co-authored a research paper in Finance, which is under review for publication. I plan to apply for Fall 2011 but quite confused with Universities. I want to get into a good University (good at research) but dont want to fail again. Please suggest a few schools where I have a good chance of getting selected with my profile.

cabro57 · Answer

For finance, I really can't say. I think a good way to approach this is to figure out whether getting admitted at a top school is more important, or whether doing a PhD it more important. You may see it differently, but I wouldn't want to waste another year to get into a better school, i.e. you want to make sure you have at least 2 safety options, schools you know aren't top schools but that you wouldn't mind going to. If you work hard and can write good papers, you'll get a good job.

Phariper · Answer

Hi Cabro,

Thanks for all the helpful information. I am considering applying to a PHD Program for fall 2012. I'm a CPA with 6 years of tax experience in public accounting. I have a BA in Accounting (3.72 GPA) and a Masters in Tax (3.8 GPA). I want to be extra prepared for the coursework during the first couple of years of the program. Do you have any suggestions on courses to take that will be useful such as econ, stats and etc?

cabro57 · Answer

Given that tax research is likely to be empirical, econometrics may be a good choice. If you want to go toward mechanism design instead, do a good grad-level game theory course.

carcass · Answer

Interesting thread Some one say whare I can find a good template or example to write a research proposal ??? Thanks if you could provide this one

carcass · Answer

I was the last month in W-DC and I visited Smith School at UMD and GWU BS. Both schools (I talked with different professors) say more or less the same: ok toefl (for international) ok GMAT but what is important - really - is a STRONG research proposal, a good idea that fill up a gap in lieterature.

This is my experience

cabro57 · Answer

So you're saying professors told you that in order to be admitted in a PhD program in Accounting, you need a strong research proposal? That's definitely not my experience when it comes to North American schools -- from what I saw they always look for 'potential' first (mathematically qualified, strong background, graduate coursework), then motivation (SOP, perhaps past research but not mandatory). They do not usually expect you to come up with a good idea before sitting in a few PhD classes -- it will be 4-6 years before you finish so that idea might be outdated by the time your research is ready to be published.

carcass · Answer

I agree

But what I said is that:  ALL  components are really important and what you propose.

I mean: if you speak english perfectly, strong skills such as GMAT but if don't demostrate through your idea that something is not clear for the science, i.e. we know enough about Clusters ?? why clusters rise and most important thing, in which way we can foster their development ??? thanks to policies or by informal contacts beetwen actors ??'

If you don't do this, why a university should fund you for several years ??? what could you do in terms of knowledge for university ??? what is your research interest(s) ??'

rosedoctor1972 · Answer

Hello there

I am interested in PhD Finance. I am not sure what to say because the rankings often mislead or at best representative of the past and may not hold true in the future. I am a canadian and have been teaching in lower tier universities for almost 9 years now. I am now interested in a PhD from a good Canadian or US School. I have a 3.5 GPA in MBA ( FINANCE) but no GMAT score. I fear I will bomb the GMAT Exam and so look forward to a good school which can accommodate me without a GMAT Score.

Is it true that the FT rankings are no match to the US rankings. Is McGill at a lower level as compared to Western Ontario or even York University? If so which university would help me move forward in my career?

Would love an honest reply

best

Albert E Stevens

lk2001 · Answer

Just out of curiosity, I see neither Duke, Yale or MIT are in your rankings, is there a particular reason for that? I know that MBA and PhD rankings are not the same thing, but is U. Washington really better than Yale or MIT for a Phd in Accounting? Thanks!

ocelot22 · Answer

The rankings are just a rough pass-through. They dont consider citations, over time, etc, and most importantly, they dont include The Quarterly Journal of economics, The journal of Political Economy, and the American Economic Review, all of which are worth way more than any field journal in business. Always do a thorough analysis with as many data points as you can.

alamin8 · Answer

Did you only count USA universities in your work? Did you check London Business School's PhD in Accounting? Did you chance to check the U of Melbourne? Also, you had to consider European schools. If you consider only US-based, you had to make a valid statement as those schools are based on US universities. Because when I asked a PhD coordinator of my school (University of Central Florida), she told me U of New South Wales is way ahead than us.

My experience with doctoral rankings (especially accounting)

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards