SAINT JOSEPH’S UNIVERSITY
Robert E. Jensen
___________________
Keywords: Accounting Review, Accounting
History, Positivism, Replication, Science
The corresponding author is
Robert Jensen. Data reported in this paper are available by contacting Jean
Heck at jean.heck@sju.edu .
Acknowledgments: The authors
gratefully acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of the anonymous reviewers for
their suggestions for improving the readability of the paper. They devoted heavy amounts of time on our
behalf.
INTRODUCTION
In 2005, the American Accounting
Association (
TAR was, and still is, one of the
world’s leading accounting research journals. However, in its 81st
year of existence,
Accounting research is different from other business disciplines
in the area of citations: Top-tier accounting journals in total have fewer
citations than top-tier journals in finance, management, and marketing. Our
journals are not widely cited outside our discipline. Our top-tier journals as
a group project too narrow a view of the breadth and diversity of (what should
count as) accounting research.
Rayburn [2006, p. 4]
The purpose of this paper is to review
the evolution of TAR over its 80-year existence and illustrate how the
perceptions of what it means to be a “leading scholar” in accounting changed after
a monumental shift in editorial policy in the 1970s. While TAR served
accountancy teachers, practitioners, and standard setters of the profession in its
first 40 years, it gradually changed in ways that mirrored changes occurring at
other academic journals, according to McLemee [2006] as quoted later on in this
paper.
In the opinion of some, TAR has evolved
into a journal that is incomprehensible and of little interest to practitioners
and many accounting educators [Flesher, 1991, p. 169]. While professions like
medicine, finance, and economics have benefited from seminal ideas first
published in academe, it is difficult to trace innovations in accounting
practice to research published in academic accounting journals. For example,
many articles on ABC costing do appear in accounting research journals, but the
idea for ABC costing started at the John Deere Company. Most other innovations in
the profession, like dollar-value LIFO, can ultimately be traced back to the
accounting industry rather than academe [Jensen, 2006a]. The harvests of
“discovery research” in the accounting academy have been called into question
by the practicing profession.
Ittner and Larker [2001] conducted a
review of studies in managerial accounting and concluded that existing research
was practice-oriented and tended to focus mainly on management fads. Case
studies and field-based surveys were purportedly shallow and were not
scientifically investigated. The main criticism was that results were less
generalizable. Zimmerman [2001] followed up by conjecturing the following:
The literature's atheoretical approach.
It has been 15 years since Kaplan ... called for more field-based research.
Although much field research has been published during this period, it has not
led to the theory building and testing envisioned. Wandering the halls of corporations
without tentative hypotheses has not been fruitful.
Empirical researchers should use economics-based hypotheses and
emphasize the control function of accounting. The shift towards
consulting-like, practice-oriented research will cause less theory development
and hypotheses testing research to be conducted and all areas of accounting
inquiry will suffer.
Martin [2001] countered by questioning the value of the
contributions of theoretical economics applications preferred by leading
academic accounting research journals
See Kaplan 1998 and Jones & Dugdale who report that
contributions such as the development of ABC were not authenticated by
mainstream accounting journals or professional organizations. Instead
management consultants at Harvard and
Especially during the 1986-2005
period, TAR editors rejected virtually all “consulting-like, practice-oriented
research.” We examined all articles published by TAR between 1986 and 2005 and
found over 99 percent of TAR’s articles (excluding book/literature reviews, editorials,
and memorials) contained complex mathematical equations and multivariate
statistical analyses of a narrow subset of topics amenable to analysis using
mathematics, management science, econometrics, and psychometrics. More
traditional normative, historical, AIS, and case method studies all but
disappeared from TAR. Other top accounting research journals were changing as
well and became virtually equivalent to the new TAR [Dyckman and Zeff, 1984]. Because
advancement of faculty in top schools required publishing in top-tier journals [Langenderfer,
1987, p. 303], it became imperative over the past three decades for doctoral
programs and graduates of doctoral programs to focus more narrowly on accountics
as preferred by TAR and other top-tier accounting research journals.
Initially we point out trends since Heck
and Bremser [1986] analyzed the first sixty years. Leading authors across the
entire 80-year history of TAR are shown in Table 1. The number of appearances
is adjusted proportionately by the number of co-authors on each published
paper.
Insert Table 1 About Here
Heck and Bremser [1986] showed that leading academic authors,
like
Insert Table 2 About Here
We expected that the rise in joint authorship might have
increased the probabilities of particular authors to have five or more
appearances, but this turned out not to be the case. Joint authorship was
almost nonexistent in the early years, but the trend in joint authorship
exploded in later years, as shown in Figure 1. This is consistent with the
findings of Heck, Cooley, and Jensen (1990, 1991) for multiple journals of
accounting research.
Insert Figure 1 About Here
Table 2 outcomes indicate that joint
authorship has not increased the probability of any one author to have more
than five appearances across two decades of time. We speculate that this is in
large measure due to the fact that the “leading authors” in the past 20 years
spread their papers out among other research journals relative to earlier
periods. TAR no longer shares the monopoly it once had as the only prestige
journal of academic accounting research. But we also suspect that the actual
reasons are more complicated for the decline in probabilities that any author
will have more than five TAR appearances across a two-decade span in time ---
not the least of which is the explosion in the proportion of capital markets
accountics studies submitted to TAR by more and more accounting faculty. This
makes appearances in TAR much more competitive for such studies.
Although the number of accounting
doctoral programs in the
Insert Table 3 About Here
In Table 3, 16 universities are consistently in the Top 30
and 12 universities are consistently in the Top 20. In recent decades of
intensive accountics,
Two universities are worthy of
special comment in Table 3. Harvard has an excellent reputation in managerial
accounting but has never been a noted leader in accountics. It did not make the
Table 3 Top 30 over the last 40 years of TAR publishing. At the opposite
extreme, the
We analyze the outcomes of doctoral
students who graduated from those same programs later in this paper in Table 5.
Alma maters of frequent TAR authors are even more consistently in the Top 20
than are the Table 3 rankings of employers.
TAR BETWEEN 1926 AND 1955: IGNORING ACCOUNTICS
Accountics
is the mathematical science of values.
Charles Sprague [1887] as quoted by McMillan [1998, p. 1][NH1]
Accounting professor Charles Sprague of
These claims were not a pragmatic strategy to legitimize the
development of sophisticated bookkeeping theories. Rather, this development of
a science was seen as revealing long-hidden realities within the economic
environment and the double-entry bookkeeping system itself. The science of
accounts, through systematic mathematical analysis, could discover hidden
thrust of the reality of economic value. The term “accountics” captured the
imagination of the members of the IA, connoting advances in bookkeeping that
all these men were experiencing.
By 1900, there was a journal called Accountics [Forrester, 2003]. Both the journal and the term “accountics”
had short lives, but the belief that mathematical analysis and empirical
research can “discover hidden thrust of the reality of economic value”
underlies much of what has been published in TAR over the past three decades.
Hence, we propose reviving the term “accountics” to describe the research
methods and quantitative analysis tools that have become popular in TAR and
other leading accounting research journals. We essentially define accountics as
equivalent to the scientific study of values in what Zimmerman [2001] called
“agency problems, corporate governance, capital asset pricing, capital
budgeting, decision analysis, risk management, queuing theory, and statistical
audit analysis.”
The American Association of
University Instructors of Accounting, which in December 1935 became the
American Accounting Association, commenced unofficially in 1915 [Zeff, 1966, p.
5]. It was proposed in October of 1919 that the Association publish a Quarterly Journal of Accountics. This proposed accountics journal never got off the ground as leaders in the
Association argued heatedly and fruitlessly about whether accountancy was a
science. A quarterly journal called The
Accounting Review was subsequently born in 1925, with its first issue being
published in March of 1926. Its accountics-like attributes did not commence in
earnest until the 1960s.
Practitioner
involvement, in a large measure, was the reason for changing the name of the
Association by removing the words “of University Instructors.” Practitioners
interested in accounting education participated actively in
Following
World War II, practitioners outnumbered educators in the
A major catalyst for change in
accounting research occurred when the Ford Foundation poured millions of
dollars into the study of collegiate business schools and the funding of
doctoral programs and students in business studies. Gordon and Howell [1959]
reported that business faculty in colleges lacked research skills and academic
esteem when compared to their colleagues in the sciences. The Ford Foundation
thereafter provided funding for doctoral programs and for top quality graduate
students to pursue doctoral degrees in business and accountancy. The Foundation
even funded publication of selected doctoral dissertations to give doctoral
studies in business more visibility. Great pressures were also brought to bear
on academic associations like the
TAR BETWEEN 1956 AND 1985: NURTURING OF ACCOUNTICS
A perfect storm for change in
accounting research arose in the late 1950s and early1960s. First came the
critical Pierson Carnegie Report [1959] and the Gordon and Howell Ford
Foundation Report [1959]. Shortly thereafter, the AACSB introduced a
requirement requiring that a certain percentage of faculty possess doctoral
degrees for business education programs seeking accreditation [Bricker
and Previts, 1990]. Soon afterwards,
both a doctorate and publication in top accounting research journals became
necessary for tenure [Langenderfer, 1987].
A second component of this perfect
storm for change was the proliferation of mainframe computers, the development
of analytical software (e.g., early SPSS for mainframes), and the dawning of
management and decision “sciences.” The third huge stimulus for changed
research is rooted in portfolio theory discovered by Harry Markowitz in1952
that became the core of his dissertation at
This “perfect storm” roared into
nearly all accounting and finance research and turned academic accounting research
into an accountics-centered science of values and mathematical/statistical
analysis. After 1960, there was a shift in TAR, albeit slow at first, toward
preferences for quantitative model building --- econometric models in capital
market studies, time series models in forecasting, advanced calculus
information science, information economics, analytical models, and psychometric
behavioral models. Chatfield [1975, p. 6] wrote the following:
Beginning in the 1960s the Review published many more articles
by non-accountants, whose contribution involved showing how ideas or methods
from their own discipline could be used to solve particular accounting problems.
The more successful adaptations included matrix theory, mathematical model
building, organization theory, linear programming, and Bayesian analysis.
TAR was not alone in moving toward a
more quantitative focus. Accountics methodologies accompanied similar
quantitative model building preferences in finance, marketing, management
science, decision science, operations research, information economics, computer
science, and information systems. Early changes along these lines began to
appear in other leading research journals between 1956-1965, with some
mathematical modeling papers noted by Dyckman and Zeff [1984, p. 229]. Fleming,
Graci and Thompson [2000, p. 43] documented additional emphasis on quantitative
methodology between 1966 and 1985. In particular, they note how tenure
requirements began to change and asserted the following:
The Accounting Review evolved into a journal with demanding
acceptance standards whose leading authors were highly educated accounting
academics who, to a large degree, brought methods and tools from other
disciplines to bear upon accounting issues.
A number of new academic accountancy
journals were launched in the early 1960s, including the Journal of Accounting Research (1963), Abacus (1965) and The
International Journal of Accounting Education and Research (1965). Clinging
to its traditional normative roots and trade-article style would have made TAR
appear to be a journal for academic luddites. Actually, many of the new
mathematical approaches to theory development were fundamentally normative, but
they were couched in the formidable language and rigors of mathematics.
Publication of papers in traditional normative theory, history, and systems
slowly ground to almost zero in the new age of accountics.
These new spearheads in accountics
were not without problems. It is both humorous and sad to go back and discover
how naïve and misleading some of TAR’s bold and high risk thrusts were in
quantitative methods. Statistical models were employed without regard to
underlying assumptions of independence, temporal stationarity,
multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, missing variables, and departures from the
normal distribution. Mathematical applications were proposed for real-world
systems that failed to meet continuity and non-convexity assumptions inherent
in models such as linear programming and calculus optimizations. Some proposed
applications of finite mathematics and discrete (integer) programming failed
because the fastest computers in the world, then and now, could not solve most
realistic integer programming problems in less than 100 years.
After financial databases provided a beta
covariance of each security in a portfolio with the market portfolio, many capital
market events studies were published by TAR and other leading accounting
journals. In the early years, accounting researchers did not challenge the CAPM’s
assumptions and limitations --- limitations that, in retrospect, cast doubt
upon many of the findings based upon any single index of market risk [Fama and
French, 1992].
Leading accounting professors
lamented TAR’s preference for rigor over relevancy [Zeff, 1978; Lee, 1997; and
Williams, 1985 and 2003]. Sundem [1987] provides revealing information about
the changed perceptions of authors, almost entirely from academe, who submitted
manuscripts for review between June 1982 and May 1986. Among the 1,148
submissions, only 39 used archival (history) methods; 34 of those submissions were
rejected. Another 34 submissions used survey methods; 33 of those were rejected.
And 100 submissions used traditional normative (deductive) methods with 85 of
those being rejected. Except for a small set of 28 manuscripts classified as
using “other” methods (mainly descriptive empirical according to Sundem), the
remaining larger subset of submitted manuscripts used methods that Sundem
classified as follows:
292
General Empirical
172 Behavioral
135
Analytical modeling
119 Capital Market
97
Economic modeling
40 Statistical
modeling
29 Simulation
It is clear that by 1982, accounting researchers realized
that having mathematical or statistical analysis in TAR submissions made
accountics virtually a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for
acceptance for publication. It became increasingly difficult for a single
editor to have expertise in all of the above methods. In the late 1960s,
editorial decisions on publication shifted from the TAR editor alone to the TAR
editor in conjunction with specialized referees and eventually associate
editors [Flesher, 1991, p. 167]. Fleming et al. [2000, p. 45] wrote the
following:
The big change was in research methods. Modeling and empirical
methods became prominent during 1966-1985, with analytical modeling and general
empirical methods leading the way. Although used to a surprising extent, deductive-type
methods declined in popularity, especially in the second half of the 1966-1985
period.
We
were surprised that there was no reduction in accountics dominance in TAR since
1986 in spite of changes in the environment such as the explosion of communications
networking, interacting relational databases, and sophisticated accounting
information systems (AIS).Virtually no AIS papers were published in TAR between
1986 and 2005. This practice was changed in 2006 by the appointment of a new
AIS associate editor to encourage publication of some AIS papers that often do
not fit neatly into the accountics mold. In an interesting aside, we note that
the
A major change at TAR took place in
the 1980s with the creation of new
Fleming et al. [2000, p. 48] report
that education articles in TAR declined from 21 percent in 1946-1965 to 8
percent in 1966-1985. Issues in
Accounting Education began to publish the education articles in 1983.
Garcha, Harwood, and Hermanson [1983] reported on the readership of TAR before
any new specialty journals commenced in the
The findings of the survey reveal that opinions vary regarding TAR
and that emotions run high. At one extreme some respondents seem to believe
that TAR is performing its intended function very well. Those sharing this view
may believe that its mission is to provide a high-quality outlet for those at
the cutting-edge of accounting research. The pay-off for this approach may be
recognition by peers, achieving tenure and promotion, and gaining mobility
should one care to move. This group may also believe that trying to affect
current practice is futile anyway, so why even try?
At the other extreme are those who believe that TAR is not
serving its intended purpose. This group may believe TAR should serve the
readership interests of the audiences identified by the Moonitz Committee. Many
in the intended audience cannot write for, cannot read, or are not interested
in reading the Main Articles which have been published during approximately the
last decade. As a result there is the suggestion that this group believes that
a change in editorial policy is needed.
After a study by Abdel-khalik
[1976] revealed complaints about the difficulties of following the increased
quantitative terminology in TAR, editors did introduce abstracts at the
beginning of the articles to summarize major findings with less jargon [Flesher,
1991, p. 169]. However,
the problem was simultaneously exacerbated when TAR stopped publishing
commentaries and rebuttals that sometimes aided comprehension of complicated
research. Science journals often are much better about encouraging commentaries,
replications, and rebuttals.
TAR BETWEEN 1986 AND 2005: MATURATION OF ACCOUNTICS
We pointed out earlier in Table 2 how
the numbers of authors having five or more appearances in twenty-year time
spans has markedly declined over the entire 80-year life of TAR. Table 4 lists
the most recent top authors for the 1986-2005 period. In contrast to Heck and
Bremser [1986] findings, the likelihood that any single author will have more
than five appearances is greatly reduced in more recent times.
Insert Table 4 About Here
Practitioner membership in the
Insert Figure 2
When it commenced in 1987, Accounting Horizons (AH) was to provide
a new outlet for practitioner authors and readers because TAR was becoming
increasingly esoteric for an practitioner audience. In that first year, 22
percent of the articles published in AH had practitioners as at least one of
the authors. It never again was this high, but in the 1987-1995 time span, 8.1
percent of the authors were practitioners. Across the 1996-2005 decade, this
reduced to 1.55 percent, with no practitioner authors across the years
1999-2004. Although the purpose of AH was set out to be to appeal to
practitioners in terms of readership and authorship, it appears that AH has
failed in the latter case. Rayburn [2006] announced that initiatives would be
forthcoming to attract more practitioner authors, especially joint authorships
between practitioners and academics in TAR and AH.
Research published in TAR over the
past two decades has become increasingly rigorous as more accounting
researchers commenced to conduct more sophisticated statistical analyses on
larger databases. Compustat began to provide much more useful data such as
operating earnings after 1985. Databases like Edgar and Audit Analytics did not
exist prior to 1985. None of the accounting research databases were networked
and online until the 1990s. At the same time, statistical inference software
became easier to use when SAS came online in 1993.
TAR and other leading accounting
research journals were influenced heavily by positivist methods expounded by
Compared to the Journal of Finance, TAR has had a much lower citation rate across
disciplines.
To her recommendations, we might add
that TAR policies about not publishing replications should be changed in our
viewpoint. Failure to publish replications in TAR and other accounting research
journals is prima facie evidence that the findings themselves are not as
important as the methods and tools used to derive those findings. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to find a published replication of any study
published in the leading journals of the
When I assumed the editorship of Issues, I had to appear before
the
AUTHORS AND ALMA MATERS
In Table 2 we found an increased
turnover among TAR authors in recent years, although each year the majority of
authors tend to have graduated from the Top 20 universities. Table 5 lists the
top alma maters of frequent TAR authors for the time intervals 1926-2005,
1966-1985, and 1986-2005. The persistence of the Top 20 schools is even more
noteworthy in Table 5 (alma maters) than in Table 3 (employers).
Insert Table 5 About Here
There are 17 alma maters consistently ranked in the Top 20 in
Table 5.
The probability that any author in
TAR will have one of the Top 20 as an alma mater is over 50%. In terms of
proportions of appearances of the Top 20 alma maters in TAR, the percentages
were 51.33 percent for 1926-2005, 59.27 percent for 1966-1985, and 61.39
percent for 1986-2005. There is some suggestion that not having graduated from
one of the Top 20 or Top 30 schools greatly reduces the probability of
publishing in TAR.
Across the entire 1926-2005 TAR history,
37 percent of the doctoral graduates were in the Top 20 alma mater publishers
in TAR using Hasselback [2006] data. But as new doctoral programs came on line,
the very large doctoral programs such as those at
Rodgers and Williams [1996, p. 58]
reported the following about TAR authors from 1967-1993:
The relative success of recent graduates of the elite schools is
quite apparent when we compare them to the remainder of the U.S. Ph.D.
programs. Ninety-one
Rodgers and Williams [1996, pp. 67-68] list 56 newer
ARTICLE FREQUENCIES
Over time, both TAR in accounting and
the Journal of Finance in finance
became increasingly esoteric. A journal called Financial Management was introduced in finance in 1972 to provide
an outlet for publishing research aimed more at research of interest to practitioners.
Accounting Horizons was introduced in
1987 for the same reasons in accounting, and both of these offshoot journals
hoped to inspire professors and practitioners to engage in joint research. We
thought it would be interesting to compare the article frequencies of these
journals.
Figure 3 shows the number of 2000-2004
doctoral graduates in accounting versus those in finance over the same time
span from AACSB accredited universities.
Insert Figure 3 About Here
New doctoral graduates are especially interested in
publishing in the leading journals of their academic disciplines. Most submit
one or several articles from their dissertations. Figure 4 compares the numbers
of articles published from the two academic finance journals mentioned above with
two AAA accounting journals mentioned above.
Insert Figure 4 Here
Comparison of these two graphs is
somewhat difficult because there are other academic journals in both
disciplines. However, the outcome in Figure 4 alone suggests roughly three
times as much opportunity for publishing in these two leading finance journals even
though the number of doctoral graduates in finance is only slightly larger than
the number of doctoral graduates in accounting. During the 1986-2005 period,
the Journal of Finance alone published
well over twice as many articles as TAR. This fact, plus the outcomes in Figures
3 and 4, support former AAA President Rayburn’s contention that other academic
disciplines such as finance provide many more outlets for faculty research
publications relative to those available to accounting faculty. It also
supports her recommendation for publishing more articles in TAR. Her appeal was
answered in part when TAR increased the number of issues from four per year to
six per year starting in 2006.
In Figure 5, Accounting Horizons shows a decline in the numbers of articles
published relative to the pattern for TAR. Accounting researchers show an
increased propensity for publishing in TAR relative to the more practice and
profession oriented Accounting Horizons.
Insert Figure 5 Here
Pressures for increased volume and diversity arise from
accounting faculty, who argue that due to the long history of TAR as a premiere
academic journal, publications in TAR count more than publications in other
The lowest volume years in TAR are
somewhat misleading in Figure 5. During those few years, before the
PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAR AFTER ITS 80th BIRTHDAY
Incoming
In addition to publishing more papers
in six rather than four issues per year, TAR will become somewhat more diverse
in one sense. McCarthy [2005, p. 1] wrote the following with respect to
Accounting Information Systems in TAR:
This has been generally true (that
TAR will not publish AIS research) in the past and
there are certainly still a host of accounting journals that underestimate the
importance of accounting information systems (AIS) research. Additionally, it
is still true that almost all accounting academics remain clueless about the
different kinds of methodologies that AIS, MIS, and computer science
researchers generally use. Thus, accounting systems people (like Dave and I
plus many AECM members) are forced to live in an academic world that
understands neither “the what” nor “the how” of AIS research and teaching.
However, the American Accounting Association (in general) and The Accounting
Review (in particular) are taking steps to narrow this gap in understanding.
Dan Dhaliwal, the senior editor of The Accounting Review (TAR) has appointed me
– a known maverick in accounting circles and a long-time champion of AIS
research and teaching -- as an editor for TAR.
IMPLICATIONS OF ACCOUNTICS FOR ACCOUNTING PROGRAMS
We surmise that some professionals in accounting who have no aptitude or
interest in becoming scientists refrain from enrolling in current accounting
doctoral programs due to the narrowness of most accounting doctoral programs
and the lack of other epistemological and ontological methods more to their
liking. New evidence suggests that this problem also extends to topical
concentrations of those who do enter doctoral programs. In a study of the
critical shortage of doctoral students in accountancy, Plumlee et al. [2006]
discovered that there were only 29 doctoral students in auditing and 23 in tax
out of the 2004 total of 391 accounting doctoral students enrolled in years 1-5
in the
The Committee
believes the dire shortages in tax and audit areas warrant particular focus.
One possible solution to these specific shortages is for PhD. Programs to
create new tracks targeted toward developing high-quality faculty specifically
in these areas. These tracks should be considered part of a well-rounded Ph.D.
program in which students develop specialized knowledge in one area of accounting,
but gain substantive exposure to other accounting research areas . . .
A possible explanation for the shortages in these areas is that PhD.
Students perceive that publishing audit and tax research in top accounting
journals is more difficult, which might have the unintended consequence of
reducing the supply of PhD.-qualified faculty to teach in those specialties.
Given that promotion
and tenure requirements at major universities require publication in top-tier
journals, students are likely drawn to financial accounting in hopes of getting
the necessary publications for career success. While the Committee has no
evidence that bears directly on this point, it believes that the possibility
deserves further consideration.
A number of
Although empirical scientific method has made many positive
contributions to accounting research, it is not the method that is likely to
generate new theories, though it will be useful in testing them. For example,
Einstein’s theories were not developed empirically, but they relied on
understanding the empirical evidence and they were tested empirically. Both the
development and testing of theories should be recognized as acceptable
accounting research.
Although the
For accounting, Hasselback [2006]
reports that the number of accounting doctoral degrees plunged from 212 in 1989
to 96 in 2004. Even if he missed a few in his count, the trend is clearly
critical. Fewer and fewer accounting undergraduate and master’s degree graduates
are returning to earn doctoral degrees. The reasons for this are complex, but
there is considerable anecdotal evidence that some potential doctoral
candidates are not interested in the narrow scientific methodology curriculum
offered at most doctoral programs.
Zimmerman was a major mover in the
top-tier journal shift toward positivist methods and accountics research,
Zimmerman [2001] and
CONCLUSION
In the first 40 years of TAR, an
accounting “scholar” was first and foremost an expert on accounting. After
1960, following the Gordon and Howell Report, the perception of what it took to
be a “scholar” changed to quantitative modeling. It became advantageous for an
“accounting” researcher to have a degree in mathematics, management science,
mathematical economics, psychometrics, or econometrics. Being a mere accountant
no longer was sufficient credentials to be deemed a scholarly researcher. Many
doctoral programs stripped much of the accounting content out of the curriculum
and sent students to mathematics and social science departments for courses. Scholarship
on accounting standards became too much of a time diversion for faculty who
were “leading scholars.” Particularly relevant in this regard is Dennis
Beresford’s address to the
In my eight years in teaching I’ve concluded that way too many
of us don’t stay relatively up to date on professional issues. Most of
us have some experience as an auditor, corporate accountant, or in some similar
type of work. That’s great, but things change quickly these days.
Beresford [2005]
Jane Mutchler made a similar appeal for accounting professors
to become more involved in the accounting profession when she was President of
the
In the last 40 years, TAR’s publication
preferences shifted toward problems amenable to scientific research, with
esoteric models requiring accountics skills in place of accounting expertise. When
Professor Beresford attempted to publish his remarks, an Accounting Horizons referee’s report to him contained the following
revealing reply about “leading scholars” in accounting research:
1. The paper provides specific recommendations for things that
accounting academics should be doing to make the accounting profession better.
However (unless the author believes that academics' time is a free good) this
would presumably take academics' time away from what they are currently doing.
While following the author's advice might make the accounting profession
better, what is being made worse? In other words, suppose I stop reading
current academic research and start reading news about current developments in
accounting standards. Who is made better off and who is made worse off by this
reallocation of my time? Presumably my students are marginally better off,
because I can tell them some new stuff in class about current accounting
standards, and this might possibly have some limited benefit on their careers.
But haven't I made my colleagues in my department worse off if they depend on
me for research advice, and haven't I made my university worse off if its
academic reputation suffers because I'm no longer considered a leading scholar? Why does making the
accounting profession better take precedence over everything else an academic does
with their time?
As quoted in Jensen [2006a]
The above quotation illustrates the consequences of editorial
policies of TAR and several other leading accounting research journals. To be
considered a “leading scholar” in accountancy, one’s research must employ
mathematically-based economic/behavioral theory and quantitative modeling. Most
TAR articles published in the past two decades support this contention. But
according to
In terms of citations, TAR fails on
two accounts. Citation rates are low in practitioner journals because the
scientific paradigm is too narrow, thereby discouraging researchers from
focusing on problems of great interest to practitioners that seemingly just do
not fit the scientific paradigm due to lack of quality data, too many missing
variables, and suspected non-stationarities. TAR editors are loath to open TAR
up to non-scientific methods so that really interesting accounting problems are
neglected in TAR. Those non-scientific methods include case method studies,
traditional historical method investigations, and normative deductions.
In the other account, TAR citation
rates are low in academic journals outside accounting because the methods and
techniques being used (like CAPM and options pricing models) were discovered
elsewhere and accounting researchers are not sought out for discoveries of
scientific methods and models. The intersection of models and topics that do
appear in TAR seemingly are borrowed models and uninteresting topics outside
the academic discipline of accounting.
We close with a quotation from Scott
McLemee demonstrating that what happened among accountancy academics over the
past four decades is not unlike what happened in other academic disciplines
that developed “internal dynamics of esoteric disciplines,” communicating among
themselves in loops detached from their underlying professions. McLemee’s [2006]
article stems from Bender [1993].
“Knowledge and competence
increasingly developed out of the internal dynamics of esoteric disciplines
rather than within the context of shared perceptions of public needs,” writes
Bender. “This is not to say that professionalized disciplines or the modern
service professions that imitated them became socially irresponsible. But their
contributions to society began to flow from their own self-definitions rather
than from a reciprocal engagement with general public discourse.”
Now, there is a definite note of sadness in Bender’s narrative –
as there always tends to be in accounts of the shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. Yet it is also clear that the transformation from civic to
disciplinary professionalism was necessary.
“The new
disciplines offered relatively precise subject matter and procedures,” Bender
concedes, “at a time when both were greatly confused. The new professionalism
also promised guarantees of competence — certification — in an era when
criteria of intellectual authority were vague and professional performance was
unreliable.”
But in the epilogue to Intellect and Public Life, Bender suggests that the
process eventually went too far. “The risk now is precisely the opposite,” he
writes. “Academe is threatened by the twin dangers of fossilization and
scholasticism (of three types: tedium, high tech, and radical chic). The agenda
for the next decade, at least as I see it, ought to be the opening up of the
disciplines, the ventilating of professional communities that have come to
share too much and that have become too self-referential.”
For the good of the
REFERENCES
Abdel-khalik, A.(1976), “An Analysis of the Attitudes of
a Sample of
Bailey, A. (1994), “Journals,” Accounting Education News 21 (January): 1-5.
Bender, T. (1993), “Intellect and Public Life: Essays
on the Social History of Academic Intellectuals in the
Beresford,
D. (2005), “Luncheon Address at the American Accounting Association Annual
Meetings,”
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#AcademicsVersusProfession
Bricker, R. and Previts, G. (1990), “The Sociology of
Accountants: A Study of the Practice Community Schisms,” Accounting Horizons 4 (1): 1-14.
Chatfield, M. (1975), “The Accounting Review’s First Fifty
Years,” The Accounting Review 50 (1).
1-6.
Christenson, C. (1983), “The Methodology of Positive
Accounting,” The Accounting Review 58
(1). 1-22.
DeAngelo, H., l. DeAngelo, L and Zimmerman, J. L. (2005),
“What's Really Wrong With
Dyckman,
T.R. and Zeff, S. A. 1984. “Two Decades of the Journal of Accounting Research,” Journal of Accounting Research 22 (1): 225-297.
Fama, F.E.
and French, K. R. (1992), “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns,” Journal of Finance 47 (2): 427-465.
Fleming,
R.J., Graci, S. P., and Thompson, J. E. (2000), “Dawning of the age of
quantitative/empirical methods in accounting research: Evidence from the
leading authors of The Accounting Review, 1966-1985,” The Accounting Historians Journal 27 (1): 43-72.
Flesher, D.
(1991), “The Third-Quarter Century of the American Accounting Association
1966-1991,”
Forrester,
D.A. (2003), “The St. LOUIS EXPOSITION of 1904 and the ACCOUNTANTS' CONGRESS,”
Garcha, B.S.,
Harwood, G. B., and Hermanson, R. H. (1983), “A Study of the Readership of The
Accounting Review,” Journal of Accounting Education (Fall): 21-39.
Gordon, R.A.
& Howell. J.E. (1959) Higher Education forBusiness.
Hasselback,
J.R. (2006), Accounting Faculty Directory
2006-2007.
Heck, J. L.
and Bremser, W. G. (1986), “Six decades of The Accounting Review: A summary of
author and institutional contributors,” The
Accounting Review 61 (4): 735-744
Heck, J.L.,
Jensen, R. E., and Cooley, P. L. (1990), “An Analysis of Contributors to
Accounting Journals Part II: The Aggregate Performances,” International Journal of Accounting 25: 202-217.
Heck, J.L.,
Jensen, R. E., and Cooley, P. L. (1991), “An Analysis of Contributors to
Accounting Journals Part II: The Individual Academic Accounting Journals,” International Journal of Accounting 26:
1-17.
Ittner, C.
D. and Larcker, D. F. (2001) “Assessing empirical research in managerial
accounting: A value-based management perspective,” Journal of Accounting and Economics 32: 349-410.
Jensen, R.E.
2006a. “Brief Summary of Accounting Theory: Academics Versus the Profession,”
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#AcademicsVersusProfession
Jensen, R.E.
2006b. “Brief Summary of Accounting Theory: Replication,”
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#Relication
Langenderfer,
H. (1987) “Accounting Education’s History - A 100 Year Search for Identity,” Journal of Accountancy (May): 302-331.
Lee, T. (1997)
“The Editorial Gatekeepers of the
Martin, J.R.
(2001) “MAAW Controversial Issues Link, “ http://www.maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumZimmerman01.htm
McCarthy,
W.E. (2005) “Message on the AECM Listserv,”
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#AcademicsVersusProfession
McLemee, S. (2006)
“Notes from the Underground. Inside
Higher Ed. January 18,”
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/01/18/mclemee
McMillan,
K.P. (1998) “The science of accounts: Bookkeeping rooted in the ideal of
science,” Accounting Historians Journal
(December): 1-21.
Mutchler, J.
(2004) “President's Message,” Accounting Education News 31:1-4.
Nonaka,
Pierson,
F.C. (1959) TheEducation of American
Businessmen.
Plumlee,
D.R., Kachelmeir, S. J., Madeo, S. A., Pratt, J. H., and Krull, G. (2006) “Assessing
the shortage of accounting faculty,” Issues in Accounting Education 21
(2): pp. 113-126.
Popper, K. (1934)
Logik der Forschung is a 1934 book by
Karl Popper. It was originally written in German, but reformulated in English
by Popper in 1959 under the title The
Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge (ISBN 0-415-27844-9).
Rayburn,
J.D. (2005) “PowerPoint Slides from the American Accounting Association
President’s Address in
Rayburn,
J.D. (2006) “President’s Message,” Accounting
Education News 33: 1-5.
Rodgers, J. and Williams, P. A. (1996) “Patterns
of research productivity and knowledge creation at The Accounting Review: 1967-1993,”
The Accounting Historians Journal 23
(1): pp. 51-88.
Sundem, G. (1987)
“Overview of Four Years of Submissions to The Accounting Review,” The Accounting Review 62 (1). 191-202.
Sundem, G. (1993)
“President’s Message,” Accounting
Education News 21 (3). 3.
Tinker, T.,
Merino. B., and Neimark, M. (1982) “The normative origins of positive theories:
ideology and accounting thought,”
Accounting Organizations and Society 7 (2): 167-200.
Whitley,
R.D. (1988) “The Possibility and Utility of Positive Accounting Theory,” Accounting. Organizations and Society.
631-645.
Williams, P.F. (1985) “A
Descriptive Analysis of Authorship in The Accounting Review,” The Accounting Review 60 (2): 300-313.
Williams,
P.F. (2003) “Modern accounting scholarship: the imperative of positive economic
science,” Accounting Forum 27 (3):
248-263.
Zimmerman, J. L. (2001) “Conjectures regarding
empirical managerial accounting research” Journal
of Accounting and Economics (32): 411-427.
FIGURE 1
Trend in Joint Authorship of TAR Articles 1926-2005
.
FIGURE 2
Non-Academic Authorship in TAR
FIGURE 3
Numbers of Doctoral Degrees from 2000-2004
Source:
These outcomes are for doctoral graduates of AACSB universities as provided by
the AACSB Data Director.
FIGURE 4
Numbers of Articles Published 1987-2005
Accounting: The
Accounting Review(TAR) + Accounting
Horizons(AH)
Finance: Journal of Finance(JF) + Financial
Management(FM)
FIGURE 5
Articles Per Year in TAR vs. Accounting Horizons
TAR: The
Accounting Review
AccHor: Accounting Horizons
TABLE 1
Most Frequent Appearing Authors in The Accounting Review: 1926-2005
Rank |
Adjusted Author Appearances Appearances |
|
Rank |
Adjusted Author Appearances Appearances |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Littleton, A. C. |
40 |
38.80 |
|
45 |
Ashton, Robert H. |
9 |
7.00 |
|
2 |
Bierman, Harold, Jr. |
20 |
18.33 |
|
46 |
Abdel-Khalik, A.
Rashad |
9 |
6.83 |
|
3 |
Paton, William A. |
20 |
15.61 |
|
47 |
Kaplan, Robert S. |
9 |
6.83 |
|
4 |
Kohler, E. L. |
17 |
15.17 |
|
48 |
Krebs, William S. |
9 |
6.54 |
|
5 |
Demski, Joel S. |
17 |
11.67 |
|
49 |
Ijiri, Yuji |
9 |
6.50 |
|
6 |
Murphy, Mary E. |
16 |
16.00 |
|
50 |
Dopuch, Nicholas |
9 |
6.00 |
|
7 |
Avery, Harold G. |
16 |
15.50 |
|
51 |
Hatfield, Henry R. |
9 |
6.00 |
|
8 |
Mautz, Robert K. |
16 |
13.50 |
|
52 |
Lev, Baruch |
9 |
5.83 |
|
9 |
Dohr, James L. |
14 |
13.50 |
|
53 |
Wildman, John R. |
9 |
5.10 |
|
10 |
Kerrigan, Harry D. |
14 |
13.50 |
|
54 |
Briggs, L. L. |
8 |
8.00 |
|
11 |
Greer, Howard C. |
13 |
12.17 |
|
55 |
Chambers, R. J. |
8 |
8.00 |
|
12 |
Scott, DR |
13 |
12.17 |
|
56 |
Devine, Carl Thomas |
8 |
8.00 |
|
13 |
Taggart, Herbert F. |
13 |
11.64 |
|
57 |
Garner, S. Paul |
8 |
8.00 |
|
14 |
Horngren, Charles T. |
13 |
10.83 |
|
58 |
Moyer, C. A. |
8 |
8.00 |
|
15 |
Revsine, Lawrence |
13 |
9.67 |
|
59 |
Stettler, Howard F. |
8 |
8.00 |
|
16 |
Mason, Perry |
12 |
12.00 |
|
60 |
Davidson, |
8 |
7.50 |
|
17 |
Husband, George R. |
12 |
11.33 |
|
61 |
Myers, John H. |
8 |
7.50 |
|
18 |
Lorig, Arthur N. |
12 |
11.33 |
|
62 |
Raby, William L. |
8 |
7.50 |
|
19 |
Bedford, Norton M. |
12 |
.50 |
|
63 |
Newlove, G. H. |
8 |
7.11 |
|
20 |
Cooper, William W. |
12 |
5.92 |
|
64 |
Usry, Milton F. |
8 |
7.00 |
|
21 |
Campfield, William L. |
11 |
11.00 |
|
65 |
Rappaport, Alfred |
8 |
6.50 |
|
22 |
Singer, Frank A. |
11 |
11.00 |
|
66 |
Deakin, Edward B. |
8 |
6.33 |
|
23 |
Scovill, Hiram T. |
11 |
9.83 |
|
67 |
Chow, Chee W. |
8 |
5.17 |
|
24 |
Kinney, William R.,
Jr. |
11 |
7.67 |
|
68 |
Jaedicke, Robert K. |
8 |
5.17 |
|
25 |
Manes, Rene Pierre |
11 |
7.33 |
|
69 |
Decoster, Don T. |
8 |
5.00 |
|
26 |
Beaver, William H. |
11 |
6.83 |
|
70 |
Feltham, Gerald A. |
8 |
4.83 |
|
27 |
Bowers, Russell |
10 |
10.00 |
|
71 |
Sorter, George H. |
8 |
4.83 |
|
28 |
Graham, Willard J. |
10 |
10.00 |
|
72 |
Verrecchia, Robert E. |
8 |
4.83 |
|
29 |
Simon, Sidney I. |
10 |
10.00 |
|
73 |
Ronen, Joshua |
8 |
4.67 |
|
30 |
Smith, Frank P. |
10 |
10.00 |
|
74 |
Neter, John |
8 |
4.58 |
|
31 |
Staubus, George J. |
10 |
10.00 |
|
75 |
Larcker, David F. |
8 |
3.83 |
|
32 |
Moonitz, Maurice |
10 |
9.00 |
|
76 |
Nelson, Mark W. |
8 |
3.67 |
|
33 |
Perry, Kenneth W. |
10 |
9.00 |
|
77 |
Boatsman, James R. |
8 |
3.25 |
|
34 |
Rorem, C. Rufus |
10 |
8.61 |
|
|
31 Authors with |
7 |
|
|
35 |
Zeff, Stephen A. |
10 |
8.50 |
|
|
45 Authors with |
6 |
|
|
36 |
Mckeown, James C. |
10 |
6.33 |
|
|
72 Authors with |
5 |
|
|
37 |
Benninger, Lawrence J. |
9 |
9.00 |
|
|
117 Authors with |
4 |
|
|
38 |
Stone, Willard E. |
9 |
9.00 |
|
|
234 Authors with |
3 |
|
|
39 |
Van Voorhis, Robert H. |
9 |
9.00 |
|
|
510 Authors with |
2 |
|
|
40 |
Vance, Lawrence L. |
9 |
9.00 |
|
|
1827 Authors with |
1 |
|
|
41 |
Vatter, William J. |
9 |
9.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
Castenholz, William B. |
9 |
8.50 |
|
|
Total Authors |
2913 |
|
|
43 |
Howard, Stanley E. |
9 |
8.50 |
|
|
Total Appearances |
5696 |
|
|
44 |
Morey, Lloyd |
9 |
8.25 |
|
|
Total Articles |
4209 |
|
|
TABLE 2
Author Appearance
Trends (as a Percentage of All Appearances)
in The Accounting Review: 1926-2005
|
3 or More |
4 or More |
5 or More |
|
1926-46 |
22.8% |
12.4% |
8.4% |
|
1946-65 |
19.5% |
10.9% |
5.6% |
|
1966-85 |
12.4% |
7.3% |
4.5% |
|
1986-05 |
14.5% |
6.0% |
0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1926-05 |
19.8% |
11.7% |
7.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TABLE 3
Most
Frequent Appearing Institutions in The
Accounting Review: 1926-2005
|
Period: 1926-2005 |
|
|
Period: 1966-1985 |
|
|
Period: 1986-2005 |
|
|||
|
|
|
Adjusted |
|
|
|
Adjusted |
|
|
|
Adjusted |
Rank |
Institution |
Appearances |
Appearances |
Rank |
Institution |
Appearances |
Appearances |
Rank |
Institution |
Appearances |
Appearances |
1 |
|
272 |
224.94 |
1 |
|
78 |
51.08 |
1 |
|
45 |
19.17 |
2 |
|
158 |
106.08 |
2 |
|
50 |
33.83 |
2 |
|
43 |
21.50 |
3 |
|
123 |
95.67 |
3 |
U. |
44 |
29.83 |
3 |
|
41 |
19.83 |
4 |
|
118 |
92.67 |
4 |
Stanford |
43 |
29.33 |
4 |
|
34 |
23.17 |
5 |
UC Berkeley |
109 |
93.67 |
5 |
|
41 |
28.00 |
5 |
Cornell |
34 |
17.17 |
6 |
U. |
105 |
75.33 |
6 |
|
40 |
30.42 |
6 |
U. |
31 |
17.67 |
7 |
|
104 |
72.33 |
7 |
|
40 |
26.00 |
7 |
|
30 |
14.33 |
8 |
Northwestern |
102 |
74.17 |
8 |
Northwestern |
37 |
24.42 |
8 |
Stanford |
28 |
15.58 |
9 |
Stanford |
99 |
68.58 |
9 |
Purdue |
36 |
21.50 |
9 |
|
26 |
13.50 |
10 |
|
93 |
68.83 |
10 |
|
33 |
20.33 |
10 |
|
26 |
11.50 |
11 |
|
84 |
50.98 |
11 |
|
31 |
21.83 |
11 |
Notre Dame |
25 |
12.58 |
12 |
|
76 |
55.75 |
12 |
NYU |
31 |
19.67 |
12 |
|
25 |
11.33 |
13 |
Cornell |
74 |
48.33 |
13 |
Carnegie Mellon |
30 |
16.33 |
13 |
NYU |
24 |
12.75 |
14 |
NYU |
73 |
48.42 |
14 |
Cornell |
28 |
20.33 |
14 |
|
23 |
13.83 |
15 |
|
72 |
57.77 |
15 |
|
27 |
18.50 |
15 |
|
23 |
13.00 |
16 |
|
69 |
40.67 |
16 |
|
27 |
15.58 |
16 |
|
21 |
13.25 |
17 |
|
67 |
45.87 |
17 |
|
25 |
16.17 |
17 |
Duke |
21 |
10.58 |
18 |
|
66 |
49.31 |
18 |
|
24 |
18.17 |
18 |
|
21 |
10.42 |
19 |
|
63 |
41.75 |
19 |
|
24 |
17.67 |
19 |
|
21 |
9.58 |
20 |
Carnegie Mellon |
62 |
37.08 |
20 |
|
24 |
14.83 |
20 |
|
20 |
12.00 |
21 |
|
59 |
39.81 |
21 |
UC Berkeley |
22 |
20.67 |
21 |
Northwestern |
20 |
11.83 |
22 |
UCLA |
56 |
50.25 |
22 |
|
22 |
17.33 |
22 |
|
20 |
9.50 |
23 |
Harvard |
56 |
45.00 |
23 |
Virginia Tech |
21 |
14.33 |
23 |
Baruch |
20 |
9.17 |
25 |
|
56 |
41.67 |
25 |
|
20 |
14.33 |
25 |
UC Berkeley |
18 |
11.33 |
25 |
|
53 |
33.00 |
25 |
Tel Aviv |
19 |
7.67 |
25 |
Emory |
18 |
9.17 |
26 |
|
50 |
33.25 |
26 |
|
18 |
13.33 |
26 |
|
18 |
8.17 |
27 |
|
50 |
32.91 |
27 |
|
18 |
9.33 |
27 |
|
17 |
10.83 |
28 |
Purdue |
49 |
29.00 |
28 |
|
17 |
12.67 |
28 |
|
17 |
7.17 |
29 |
|
45 |
25.33 |
29 |
|
17 |
12.50 |
29 |
|
16 |
8.17 |
30 |
|
44 |
33.00 |
30 |
|
16 |
12.17 |
30 |
|
16 |
7.67 |
|
|
44 |
27.33 |
|
|
16 |
9.33 |
|
|
16 |
6.75 |
|
|
44 |
24.75 |
|
SUNY |
16 |
8.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total All Authors |
5,696 |
|
|
Total All Authors |
1,834 |
|
|
Total All Authors |
1,453 |
|
TABLE 4
Leading Authors in The Accounting Review: 1986-2005
Name |
Appearances |
Adjusted Appearances |
Nelson,
Mark W. |
8 |
3.67 |
Verrecchia,
Robert E. |
7 |
3.83 |
Barth,
Mary E. |
7 |
3.67 |
Bonner,
Sarah G. |
7 |
3.17 |
Francis,
Jere R. |
7 |
3.00 |
Baginski,
Stephen P. |
7 |
2.75 |
Banker,
Rajiv D. |
7 |
2.67 |
Landsman,
Wayne R. |
6 |
2.92 |
Maines,
Laureen A. |
6 |
2.17 |
Sansing,
Richard C. |
5 |
3.50 |
Bartov,
Eli |
5 |
3.33 |
Kinney,
William R., Jr. |
5 |
3.33 |
Rajan,
Madhav V. |
5 |
2.83 |
Khurana,
Inder K. |
5 |
2.67 |
Kachelmeier,
Steven J. |
5 |
2.33 |
Barron,
Orie E. |
5 |
2.25 |
Libby,
Robert |
5 |
2.17 |
Hassell,
John M. |
5 |
2.00 |
Bowen,
Robert M. |
5 |
1.83 |
Authors
with 4 appearances |
45 |
|
Authors
with 3 appearances |
87 |
|
Authors
with 2 appearances |
131 |
|
Authors
with 1 appearance |
459 |
|
TABLE 5
Leading Doctoral Degree Alma Maters of Authors in The Accounting Review
|
Period: 1926-2005 |
|
|
Period: 1966-1985 |
|
|
Period: 1986-2005 |
|
|||
|
|
|
Adjusted |
|
|
|
Adjusted |
|
|
|
Adjusted |
Rank |
Institution |
Appearances |
Appearances |
Rank |
Institution |
Appearances |
Appearances |
Rank |
Institution |
Appearances |
Appearances |
1 |
|
470 |
373.37 |
1 |
|
163 |
118.58 |
1 |
|
70 |
37.75 |
2 |
|
307 |
242.84 |
2 |
|
85 |
54.58 |
2 |
|
69 |
34.00 |
3 |
|
269 |
209.44 |
3 |
|
81 |
58.50 |
3 |
|
68 |
39.50 |
4 |
|
208 |
146.58 |
4 |
|
80 |
55.25 |
4 |
Stanford |
66 |
32.08 |
5 |
|
173 |
115.17 |
5 |
|
76 |
61.00 |
5 |
|
60 |
33.00 |
6 |
Stanford |
139 |
88.75 |
6 |
|
75 |
53.67 |
6 |
U. |
55 |
31.92 |
7 |
UC Berkeley |
130 |
99.92 |
7 |
Stanford |
63 |
47.17 |
7 |
|
53 |
27.00 |
8 |
|
130 |
93.75 |
8 |
|
47 |
29.83 |
8 |
|
52 |
25.42 |
9 |
|
130 |
90.33 |
9 |
|
44 |
32.00 |
9 |
|
40 |
17.58 |
10 |
|
127 |
90.75 |
10 |
UC Berkeley |
43 |
31.67 |
10 |
UC Berkeley |
39 |
22.42 |
11 |
|
118 |
91.85 |
11 |
|
40 |
29.00 |
11 |
Cornell |
39 |
20.75 |
12 |
Northwestern |
99 |
72.50 |
12 |
Carnegie Mellon |
39 |
22.50 |
12 |
|
36 |
17.67 |
13 |
U. |
94 |
62.08 |
13 |
|
39 |
20.83 |
13 |
|
33 |
17.83 |
14 |
NYU |
85 |
63.67 |
14 |
NYU |
35 |
26.17 |
14 |
|
32 |
18.00 |
15 |
|
85 |
53.83 |
15 |
U. |
33 |
24.67 |
15 |
|
32 |
16.25 |
16 |
|
79 |
52.35 |
16 |
Cornell |
32 |
20.33 |
16 |
Northwestern |
30 |
17.33 |
17 |
Cornell |
75 |
44.08 |
17 |
Purdue |
32 |
16.08 |
17 |
Carnegie Mellon |
29 |
15.58 |
18 |
|
71 |
57.50 |
18 |
Northwestern |
29 |
18.17 |
18 |
|
28 |
15.58 |
19 |
Carnegie Mellon |
69 |
39.08 |
19 |
|
27 |
21.50 |
19 |
|
26 |
11.67 |
20 |
|
66 |
41.67 |
20 |
|
24 |
17.83 |
20 |
NYU |
25 |
13.50 |
21 |
|
62 |
33.33 |
21 |
|
22 |
18.83 |
21 |
|
23 |
12.50 |
22 |
Harvard |
56 |
40.33 |
22 |
|
19 |
14.00 |
22 |
|
23 |
10.58 |
23 |
|
48 |
31.42 |
23 |
UCLA |
19 |
14.00 |
23 |
|
21 |
10.50 |
25 |
|
46 |
29.50 |
25 |
|
19 |
13.67 |
25 |
|
21 |
9.33 |
25 |
Purdue |
45 |
24.25 |
25 |
|
19 |
12.17 |
25 |
|
20 |
10.08 |
26 |
LSU |
41 |
35.08 |
26 |
|
16 |
9.83 |
26 |
|
19 |
10.83 |
27 |
|
39 |
28.42 |
27 |
|
16 |
8.67 |
27 |
Harvard |
19 |
9.33 |
28 |
|
39 |
21.33 |
28 |
|
15 |
11.50 |
28 |
|
14 |
6.00 |
29 |
|
38 |
28.00 |
29 |
|
15 |
10.33 |
29 |
|
13 |
6.83 |
30 |
UCLA |
37 |
27.92 |
30 |
|
15 |
10.25 |
30 |
|
13 |
5.75 |
|
|
37 |
27.17 |
|
|
15 |
7.50 |
|
|
|
|