There is disagreement in the accounting community about what level of standardization would be efficient for accounting. Many of the known costs and benefits of standardization have gone unmeasured and, as a result, there have been no efforts to quantitatively identify an efficient level of accounting standardization. Without guidance from researchers, the level of accounting standardization is set according to the intuition of standard-setters. Using data on a large cross-section of occupations, I provide evidence that the level of standardization in financial reporting occupations is far higher than would be expected given their characteristics. I then show with time-series data that the breadth of professional accounting discourse declined during the late 20th century, coincident with increases in the output of standard-setters. A lower quality discourse is one of many possible consequences of inefficient standardization. Data Availability: Occupations data in the O*NET, Career One Stop, and Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) databases are available from the U.S. Department of Labor. Data from the General Social Survey (GSS) are available from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at The University of Chicago. Contact the author for the data collected from the Accountants' Handbook.

Federated identity management is sometimes criticized as exacerbating the problem of online identity theft, based as it is on the idea of connecting together previously separate islands of identity information. This paper explores this conjecture, and argues that, while such linkages do undeniably increase the potential scope of a successful theft of identity information, this risk is more than offset by the much greater value federated identity, in combination with strong authentication, offers in preventing such theft in the first place.

No abstract

No abstract

For decades, prominent members of the accounting community have argued that the quality of accounting education is falling. Support for this claim is limited because of a scarcity of data characterizing the constructs of interest. This study is a comparative evaluation of the quality of accounting education from the 1970s to the 2000s using unique data to quantify education quality for accounting and many comparison disciplines. I find that, compared to most other types of college education, accounting education quality has been steady or increasing over the sample period. However, relative to other business degree programs, the evidence is mixed. The quality of students self-selecting non-accounting business degrees has increased while the quality of accounting students has not. The disparity in student quality is not reflected in the pay received by accounting graduates, which has remained stable relative to the pay received by graduates with other business degrees, although this result is likely influenced by regulatory changes during the 2000s, including Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX). Together, the evidence suggests that the quality of accounting education has not declined rapidly over the last four decades, but in the competition among business degree programs for high-quality students, accounting has underperformed. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available in the Freshman and Senior Surveys of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program's Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles; the IPUMS-USA database, which is compiled and distributed by the Minnesota Population Center at the University of Minnesota; the National Survey of College Graduates, which is available from the National Science Foundation; and the General Social Survey, which is maintained by the National Opinion Research Center at The University of Chicago.