This paper reports the results of a survey of auditing and assurance courses in the U.S. and several other countries conducted during 2000–2001. The survey, commissioned by the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association, yielded data on a total of 285 auditing and assurance courses taught at 188 colleges and universities in the United States, Canada, and several other countries. The syllabi data were analyzed on a number of dimensions and the results compared to two prior surveys of auditing courses (Frakes 1987; Groomer and Heintz 1994). Our findings document substantial changes in content (e.g., new or expanded coverage of fraud, information technology, and assurance services) and pedagogy (e.g., increased use of team projects, student presentations, cases, and the Internet) in both introductory and advanced auditing courses over the past several years. These changes are discussed in the context of events that significantly impacted auditing education and practice from the late 1980s through the end of the 1990s.

SUMMARY: Confirmations are extensively used and are often perceived by practitioners to be one of the most persuasive forms of audit evidence. Yet academic research has found limitations that restrict confirmation effectiveness for many management assertions. In addition, a number of problems with false and forged confirmations are identified in Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs). The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) have put confirmation evidence on their respective agendas. Academic research indicates that receivable confirmations can be effective evidence for the existence assertion. Low response rates, as well as respondent errors and directional bias in detecting errors, are key barriers to confirmation effectiveness. Our review of AAERs identified failure to authenticate responses, collusion between auditee management and customers, and concealed side agreements and special terms as specific problem areas. We also identify a number of research questions for future research.

Airlines, as part of their strategic planning process, articulate positions with regard to cost leadership, product differentiation, and growth. Decisions implemented are dynamic and inter-temporal in nature. Therefore, it is often difficult to assess the effectiveness of changes in strategies, particularly since such effectiveness is often a function of the confounding forces of organizational strategy and market conditions. Managers thus need a multi-period methodology to evaluate the implementation of strategic positions. One such approach is the strategic variance analysis of operating income. Horngren et al. (2000, 2006, 2012) demonstrate a methodological template for decomposing operating income into three components: (1) growth, (2) price recovery, and (3) productivity. It is suggested that the price recovery component assesses a firm’s product differentiation strategy and that the productivity component assesses a firm’s low-cost strategy. Thus, this framework is very much in the spirit of Porter’s (1980) seminal work.This study examines U.S. network airlines in the post-9/11 environment. Utilizing the above methodology, it first identifies comparative strategic positions across airlines and then assesses the implementation efficacy of these positions.

No abstract

No abstract