conce

AACSB INTERNATIONAL FIFTH YEAR MAINTENANCE REPORT SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTANCY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

Report Date: November 15, 2012Visit Dates: January 27-29, 2013

WEBSITES: College of Business home page: http://business.usf.edu/ School of Accountancy home page: http://business.usf.edu/departments/Accountancy/

University of South Florida School of Accountancy 4202 E. Fowler Ave., BSN 3403 Tampa, FL 33620 USA Phone: (813) 974-4186 Fax: (813) 974-6528

Moez Limayem, Dean College of Business University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., BSN 3403 Tampa, FL 33620 USA Phone: (813) 974-4281 Fax: (813) 974-3030 mlimayem@usf.edu

Uday Murthy, Interim Director School of Accountancy University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., BSN 3403 Tampa, FL 33620 USA Phone: (813) 974-6516 Fax: (813) 974-6528 umurthy@usf.edu

CONTENTS

1. Situational Analysis ................................................... 1 1.1 Factors that Shape Mission and Operations ....................... 1 1.2 Relative Advantages and Disadvantages .............................. 2 1.3 Internal, Environmental, or Competitive Forces

that Present Challenges .......................................................... 4 1.4 Degree Programs and Number of Graduates ..................... 5

2. Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review ........................................................ 6

3. Strategic Management .............................................. 9 3.1 Mission Statement and Summary of Strategic Plan ............ 9 3.2 Strategic Management Planning Process

and Outcomes ....................................................................... 10 3.3 Financial Strategies ................................................................ 13

SOA Funding Sources ............................................................ 13 Action Items and Financial Plans for 2012-13 ........................ 16

3.4 New Degree Programs ......................................................... 17 3.5 Intellectual Contributions .................................................... 18

4. Participants ............................................................ 204.1 Student Characteristics ..................................................... 20 4.2 Faculty Characteristics ...................................................... 21 4.3 Faculty Canagement Policies ........................................... 22

Committee Structure ............................................................. 22 Recruiting Process ................................................................. 23 Orientation Process .............................................................. 24 Promotion and Tenure Process .............................................. 25 Faculty Retention and Development ...................................... 26 Faculty Support ................................................................... 27 Faculty Qualifications .......................................................... 28 Faculty Sufficiency ................................................................ 29

5. Assurance of Learning ............................................ 315.1 Curricula Development .................................................... 31 5.2 Assessment Tools and Procedures .................................. 31

Quality Improvement Process ................................................ 31 Undergraduate Program ....................................................... 32 Master of Accountancy (MAcc) Degree ................................. 38 Doctoral Program ................................................................ 42

6. Summary and Conclusion ..................................... 48 

TABLES

TABLE 1 Degrees Awarded ......................................................................... 5

TABLE 2 School of Accountancy Financial Resources Projections for 2012-13 and 2007-08 ................................................................... 14

TABLE 3 SOA Endowed Funds as of June 30, 2012 ................................... 15

TABLE 4 Funding for Action Items Related to Strategic Priorities ............. 16

TABLE 5 Undergraduate and Graduate Headcount and Student Credit Hours, 2007-12 .......................................................................... 20

TABLE 6 Enrollment Trends by Semester and Student Level....................... 20

TABLE 7 Master of Accountancy Applications, Acceptances, Enrollment, and Degrees ............................................................................... 21

TABLE 8 Full-Time SOA Faculty (excluding Business Law) Fall 2007 through Fall 2012 ....................................................................... 22

TABLE 9 Full-Time Permanent Faculty Hires 2008-2012 ............................ 23

TABLE 10 Full-Time Permanent Faculty Retirements/Resignations/Non-Renewals 2007-08 to 2011-12 .................................................... 26

TABLE 11 Undergraduate Program Assessment Plan/Report Template 2011-12 .................................................................................... 33

TABLE 12 Master of Accountancy Program Assessment Plan/Report Template 2011-12 ..................................................................... 40

TABLE 13 PhD Program Assessment 2011-12 ............................................ 43

TABLE 14 USF School of Accountancy Placement of SOA PhD Students ................................................................................... 46

APPENDICES

1. Advisory Council Members

2. Accounting Circle Members

3. Master Strategic Plan for 2011-12

4. Program Checklists for Master of Accountancy Concentrations

5. AACSB Tables 31-1 (COB Table 2-1), 10-1, 10-2, and 9-1

6. SOA Policy Manual

7. New Faculty Orientation Script

8. SOA Quality Improvement Process

9. Prior Years’ Assessment Reports

- 1 -

1. Situational Analysis

Founded in 1956, the University of South Florida is a multi-campus system composed of three separately accredited institutions: USF, USF St. Petersburg, and USF Sarasota-Manatee. The USF System has an annual budget of $1.5 billion, an annual economic impact of $3.7 billion and offers 232 degree programs at the undergraduate, graduate, specialist and doctoral levels, including the doctor of medicine. Serving more than 47,000 students, USF is large and diverse with students from every state and nearly 160 countries. More than 30 percent are African American, Hispanic, Asian American, Native American and other races and ethnicities. USF is a doctoral-granting, research-intensive member of the USF System, which comprises the main campus in Tampa, the College of Marine Science in St. Petersburg, and USF Health. USF is ranked 50th in the nation for research expenditures among all U.S. universities. It is one of only 25 public research universities nationwide with very high research activity that is designated as community-engaged by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. USF ranked 8th as an ”Up-and-Comer” among national universities in the 2011 edition of US News & World Report’s Best Colleges. The university aspires to become a member of the prestigious Association for American Universities (AAU).

The College of Business is the second largest college at USF, with a headcount of 5,355 (4,596 undergraduate, 759 graduate) out of a total enrollment of 41,047 in fall 2012. The College of Business has four departments in addition to the School of Accountancy: Finance, Information Systems & Decision Sciences, Management & Organization, and Marketing. Of declared majors in the College of Business, in fall 2012 the SOA had an undergraduate headcount of 577 (31 percent of the college total) and a graduate headcount of 86 (29 percent of the college total). Both the undergraduate and graduate headcounts for the SOA are the highest of all departments in the College of Business. The college also has two significant centers—the Center for Entrepreneurship, which has a nationally ranked Master’s program, and the Small Business Development Center, which has a significant economic impact in the Tampa Bay region.

1.1 Factors that Shape Mission and Operations

Historically, the university has had a reputation as a “commuter school” given its location in Tampa, although that perception has changed significantly over the last few years. Still, a considerable percentage of students hold part-time jobs and take courses at night. Virtually every accounting course is offered at night at least once a year to accommodate such students. Given their work obligations, many students take longer to complete their programs, which impacts the four and five year graduation rates. On a positive note, the quality of incoming freshmen has improved markedly, with the average SAT score exceeding 1200 for the first time in fall 2012. From a locational perspective, while the Tampa Bay area is a vibrant multi-ethnic metropolitan area of some 2.8 million residents, there is not a single Fortune 100 company headquartered in the Tampa Bay area (although there are three in the Fortune 500 list).

The SOA has an active Advisory Council, comprising 36 members at the partner and Vice-President/CFO level in international accounting firms and leading corporations in and around the Tampa Bay area. A second external body contributing to the SOA is called the Accounting Circle and is comprised of recent graduates of the SOA who are eager to stay connected and give back to the SOA. An important factor shaping the mission and operations of the SOA is that the vast majority of our students come from Florida and tend to stay in Florida upon graduation. While this

- 2 -

historical tendency somewhat inhibits the reputation of the SOA on the national and international stage, the proximity of alumni to campus is an advantage that the SOA is able to leverage.

More recently, the mission and operations of the SOA are being shaped by a change in the mix of faculty. Several senior faculty members retired over the last six years and a number of junior research-active assistant professors were hired. Ten years ago, there was little high quality research being produced by SOA faculty members. Within the last seven years, SOA faculty members have published in five of the “Top 6” accounting journals. In the Brigham Young University Accounting Research Rankings, the SOA ranks third for accounting information systems research (#1 in experimental AIS research) and 28th for auditing research (#12 in experimental audit research). The addition of Dr. Patrick Wheeler (new hire) and Dr. Randy Kuhn (from Lakeland) to the SOA in fall 2012 should allow us to maintain and improve these research rankings.

USF Polytechnic in Lakeland was dissolved by legislative action effective July 1, 2012. As a result, the Lakeland campus came under the Tampa umbrella. One tenure-track faculty member (Randy Kuhn) and one instructor (Katie Davis) became part of USF Tampa upon the dissolution of USF Polytechnic in Lakeland. These faculty members have already been integrated into the life of the Tampa SOA. Thus, the impact of the dissolution of Lakeland has allowed for the integration of two faculty members to the Tampa campus, resulting in a positive impact on the SOA. Please see Appendix 1 in the COB report for further details on USF in Lakeland.

As of fall 2012, the SOA has 17 full-time faculty on the Tampa and Lakeland campuses, two visiting faculty, and nine adjunct faculty. The fall 2012 headcount of 17 full-time faculty members compares with 19 full-time faculty members in fall 2007 (excluding the Sarasota-Manatee campus, which became autonomous in 2009 and no longer falls under the Tampa accreditation umbrella). We have been authorized to hire a full-time instructor to begin in fall 2013.

A final factor shaping the mission and operations of the SOA going forward is the hiring of a new Dean, Dr. Moez Limayem. Dean Limayem brings a high level of energy, enthusiasm, and dynamism to the College of Business and he has indicated strong support for the SOA.

1.2 Relative Advantages and Disadvantages

The SOA has many advantages relating to its reputation, sponsors, and supporters. Historically, the CPA passing percentages for USF graduates has been in the top 10 in the country. With the computerization of the exam and the separate tracking of candidates with advanced (Master’s) degrees, the ranking has not been as high. In the most recent NASBA ranking, USF was ranked 37 out of 258 institutions in the “large programs” category in the pass rate for first-time candidates. The only other Florida university on the list is the University of Florida (at #5). To further improve student performance on the CPA exam, the SOA is reviving a live CPA review course that had been offered in the past but was dormant for the last two years. The SOA live CPA review course will begin in January 2013.

The SOA also has an excellent reputation among leaders in the local business community who generously support the SOA with their time and financial resources. For example, 36 senior management members representing some of the most important organizations in the area serve as members of the USF Accounting Advisory Council. Current members come from all of the international public accounting firms and many public and private corporations. Appendix 1

- 3 -

contains a complete listing of our Advisory Council. Council members serve on a three-year rotating basis. The Advisory Council has endowed a $450,000 professorship and additionally supports the needs of the SOA through dues payments ($1,000 annually). In addition, many Advisory Council members individually funded multiple $1,500 scholarships for the SOA study abroad program. Two faculty members (Uday Murthy and Jackie Reck) have led SOA students on study abroad programs to Western Europe in 2009, Eastern and Western Europe in 2010, and India in 2012. These study abroad programs have focused on international accounting and accounting information systems.

The second external body supporting the SOA is the USF Accounting Circle, which represents a partnership among faculty, students, alumni, and friends of the School. Board members of the Accounting Circle are typically alumni who have graduated within the past three to seven years. This organization supports the SOA in many ways, such as by helping organize the annual Accounting Circle CPE Conference for local CPAs. The 2012 conference generated a net profit of $114,000 for the SOA. These proceeds are used to fund student scholarships and a teaching fellowship, currently held by Celina Jozsi. The Accounting Circle also presents a number of student-oriented events such as an interviewing workshop, professionalism and communications workshop, and a graduation reception just for SOA graduates. Appendix 2 contains a list of our Accounting Circle Board members and the firms they represent.

The SOA enjoys a significant advantage with the internationally recognized Delta Gamma Chapter of Beta Alpha Psi. Recognized as superior chapter for the 38th consecutive year, SOA students in Beta Alpha Psi consistently perform very well at regional and national competitions, invariably winning first or second place in the “best practices” competition. The SOA chapter of Beta Alpha Psi is also one of only two chapters in the world to win the KPMG “Gold Challenge” award for the four years the award has been in existence. Students in the SOA Beta Alpha Psi chapter are passionate about the chapter and are dedicated to maintaining its preeminent international position.

The SOA has two disadvantages relating to its reputation, sponsors, and supporters. First, as a state institution USF is highly dependent on resources provided by the state of Florida. In addition, tuition levels are regulated by state government. Florida ranks near the bottom in its support of higher education. Despite recently authorized tuition increases, tuition levels in Florida are among the lowest in the country. In light of the challenging economic times, the state government has cut funding to higher education and resisted further tuition increases to bring tuition levels to national averages. Given these budgetary constraints, the university administration has been reluctant to authorize filling of faculty lines vacated due to retirements and attrition (voluntary and involuntary). With enrollments holding steady, this has resulted in larger class sizes in required courses, particularly at the undergraduate level, and an inability to offer certain upper-level electives. All required courses, however, are being offered and the SOA exceeds AACSB criteria for faculty qualifications and sufficiency.

The second disadvantage confronting the SOA relates to student placement. The vast majority of students wish to remain in the Tampa Bay area, and they commonly decline employment opportunities in other regions of the country. This phenomenon makes it difficult for the SOA to build a positive national reputation and raise private funds from outside the Tampa Bay area. A related issue is that we have had a difficult time tracking the placement and performance of our students upon their graduation. Although graduates are urged to complete an online survey upon graduation, response rates have remained low and we consequently have limited data on salary and

- 4 -

placement success. In the doctoral program, we have been unable to consistently place PhD students at peer or better institutions. We recognize that factors such as students’ geographical and personal preferences play a major role in doctoral student placement. Although not placed at doctoral granting institutions, recent doctoral graduates have received highly competitive compensation packages and have been placed at respected institutions (e.g., Wake Forest).

1.3 Internal, Environmental, or Competitive Forces that Present Challenges

There are a few challenges confronting the SOA going forward. The first deals with faculty strength. Along with the retirement of senior faculty who had teaching loads of nine courses a year (3/3), a number of assistant professors left the SOA either voluntarily or involuntarily (as a result of being denied tenure or not succeeding at the midpoint review stage). Due to budgetary constraints, not all departing faculty members have been replaced. Although three assistant professors were hired in 2010, they had lower teaching loads of four courses a year (2/2) and limited service responsibilities. The net result is that we now have larger class sizes in some upper level accounting courses and tenured faculty members have increased service responsibilities. Additionally, we have been unable to offer all classes desired by students, particularly upper level accounting electives. All required classes are being offered through judicious use of high quality visiting instructors and adjunct faculty, including two emeritus professors. Despite increased class sizes, however, SOA faculty members are dedicated and committed to maintaining high academic standards and delivering a high-quality educational experience for our students. Employers in and around the Tampa Bay area continue to seek out our students. Informal feedback from partners in all five large international accounting firms suggests that USF graduates perform just as well if not better than graduates of institutions such as the University of Florida and Florida State University.

A related challenge is that the recent hiring of assistant professors at market salaries has exacerbated the salary inversion problem for some long-time professors. A high priority for the college and SOA leadership is to ensure that faculty members at all ranks feel valued and contribute to the school’s mission. Another challenge for the SOA going forward is that two key research-active faculty members who have been integral to the SOA’s PhD program (Uday Murthy and Jackie Reck) have moved into administration (on an interim basis). It is hoped that the recent hiring of a tenured associate professor specializing in behavioral AIS research (Pat Wheeler), the addition of a faculty member from Lakeland who specializes in AIS research (Randy Kuhn), and the promotion to tenured associate professor of another faculty member who specializes in behavioral auditing research (Lisa Gaynor) will allow the SOA to maintain its traditional strength in behavioral and AIS research.

Our primary challenge for the undergraduate program is to maintain a high-quality, rigorous program despite class sizes being larger than they were four and five years ago. As with all units at USF, the College of Business is under intense pressure to increase four-year graduation rates since the state legislature’s new public university funding formula specifically rewards universities with strong four-year graduation rates. Since fall 2008, all courses on campus (with a select few exceptions) have been run at the maximum enrollment allowed by the classroom capacity. The SOA believes an upper level accounting class size of no more than 40 is optimal to deliver a quality accounting program. Given our reduced faculty size, however, some of these courses have enrollments of 45 and even 50 students, making it challenging to deliver a high-quality educational experience for our students. On a related note, beginning in fall 2008, the university implemented a standardized course scheduling grid to allow space on campus to be used as efficiently as possible,

- 5 -

and thus offer more sections of classes than in the past. The new grid includes Monday/ Wednesday/Friday classes, which the university has previously not used. The COB has a plan in place to use our space more efficiently, with three-day schedules being used primarily for the breakout sections for the two mass lecture courses (principles of financial and managerial accounting). Most tenured and tenure-earning faculty continue to have two-day teaching schedules, allowing non-teaching days to be devoted to research.

In the Master of Accountancy (MAcc) program, our main challenge is static enrollments. In fall 2007, the graduate headcount was 87, whereas in fall 2012 the graduate headcount is 86. There has not been a systematic and sustained effort aimed at growing enrollment in the MAcc program. One impediment to growing the MAcc program is the “fifth year” program option that provides what students see as an easier path to obtaining the 150 hours necessary for the CPA exam. To address concerns raised by external stakeholders (primarily the Advisory Council), we instituted a “tax concentration” in our MAcc program in 2010, given that many local and regional CPA firms indicated a significant need for qualified tax accountants. At the same time, we also instituted an “audit/systems” concentration. To accommodate the tax concentration, we strategically hired a faculty member, Ryan Huston, who is uniquely positioned to teach graduate level tax courses. In light of the static enrollments in the MAcc program, however, a challenge for the SOA is to continue offering both the tax and the audit/systems concentrations despite having somewhat small class sizes particularly in graduate tax courses. Going forward, special efforts need to be made to grow the MAcc program and specifically the tax concentration.

In the doctoral program, we have been able to increase stipends to a more competitive level of $20,000. Given our national reputation in accounting information systems, we continue to get quality applicants to our doctoral program. In 2012, however, we received fewer quality applicants than in the past. We were initially authorized to fund only one new doctoral student. Subsequently, when additional funding became available and we sought to make two offers, all of our acceptable candidates had already accepted other offers. Consequently, we do not have any doctoral students entering the program in fall 2012. It is hoped that if we have a larger pool of quality applicants we will be able to bring in three doctoral students in fall 2013.

1.4 Degree Programs and Number of Graduates

The degree programs included in the accreditation review include the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees, the Master of Accountancy degree, and the Doctor of Philosophy degree. The Master of Accountancy degree offers three options: a concentration in audit/systems, a concentration in tax, and a “generalist” track (no concentration). As shown in Table 1 below, the SOA awarded 211 undergraduate degrees in accounting and 44 Master of Accountancy degrees in the most recent academic year. These numbers compare with 230 undergraduate degrees and 42 Master of Accountancy degrees awarded in 2007. A significant decrease in the number of undergraduate degrees in 2008-09 and a significant increase in the number of Master’s degrees in 2009-10 are the two notable year-to-year differences.

TABLE 1 Degrees awarded

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Undergraduate 230 200 216 222 211 Master's 42 45 58 41 44

- 6 -

2. Progress Update on Concerns from Previous Review

This section indicates the concerns from the previous accreditation review and the progress that has been made to address those concerns.

Issue That Must Be Addressed

1. Provide consistent teaching and research responsibilities for faculty on the Sarasota campus.

In spring 2008, Dean Forsythe appointed a strategic planning committee comprising members of the Faculty Administrative Committee; the Faculty Executive Committee; chairs of the Undergraduate Programs Committee, the Graduate policy Committee, and the Doctoral Program Committee; faculty representatives from the Sarasota-Manatee and Lakeland campuses; and the College Development and Public Relations Directors.

The committee developed a consensus assessment of the College’s internal and external environments and recommended a ranked set of broad-based strategic initiatives that retained and expanded those outlined in the 2007-12 plan while proposing three new initiatives consistent with the University’s four over-arching goals. Initiative 8 specifically addressed the Peer Review Team’s concern:

Engage the regional campuses in a focused effort to plan for autonomy.

Implementation steps included working with the regional campuses on faculty recruitment and retention and assurance of learning measures. However, in June 2008 the USF Board of Trustees approved an accelerated timetable for separate accreditation of USF Sarasota-Manatee and USF Polytechnic in Lakeland. USF System President Judy Genshaft delegated authority to USF Sarasota-Manatee on June 1, 2009 and to USF Polytechnic (Lakeland) on August 21, 2009 for a variety of academic and administrative processes. USF Sarasota-Manatee received separate SACS accreditation in June 2011. As USF Polytechnic (Lakeland) was in the process of seeking accreditation, through legislative action effective July 1, 2012 USF Polytechnic effectively became part of USF Tampa and the twelfth state university was born (Florida Polytechnic University).

In sum, developments over the last few years have effectively rendered the concern about Sarasota teaching and research responsibilities no longer applicable, at least from the perspective of the SOA at USF Tampa.

Opportunities for Continuous Improvement

1. Provide additional financial resources in support of the PhD program (including making stipends more competitive).

In 2010, College of Business reached an agreement with the Graduate School to use a combination of public and private funds to increase incoming doctoral student stipends to $20,000, the median for Florida schools in the 2008-9 academic year. This was the highest priority new initiative in the college’s Compact Plan. The Graduate School agreed to provide funds for two incremental positions at $20,000 each; the college will match that with two additional positions at $20,000 each from private funds. To keep pace, the college had planned to increase stipends for incoming students by $1,000 per year for the next five years. Due to the tight budget, however, this plan has not as yet been implemented. The SOA has an endowed fund designated specifically to support doctoral students (i.e., the Henry Efebera Fund).

- 7 -

Additionally, travel funds available to doctoral students increased from $700 to $750 per student per year for approved travel. The SOA established a more flexible policy to allow PhD students to use these funds to travel to any conference or meeting that benefits them.

2. Consider revision of the AQ/PQ policy

The COB has revised its “Policy on Faculty Qualifications” (AQ/PQ definitions) to provide more specificity on the demonstrated work outcomes and the quantity and frequency of activities that are expected for the maintenance of PQ status. The COB also increased the minimum expectations for publication in discipline-based, peer-reviewed journals for the maintenance of AQ status to two in five years.

3. Continue to apply assurance of learning goals and document how these have produced changes and improvements

USF has implemented a comprehensive Academic Learning Compact process which is used to document learning outcomes and continual improvement in all SOA programs. The School of Accountancy participates in this annual assessment. Annual reports are available for inspection upon request.

4. Master’s degrees awarded have declined from a peak of 52 in 2004-05 to 26 in 2006-07. The school should develop plans for addressing this decrease.

Master of Accountancy (MAcc) program enrollments improved slightly during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 years. In 2008-09 we had 45 MAcc graduates. In 2009-10, the number increased to 58, which is above the 2004 high of 52. In an attempt to better brand the MAcc program, in 2010 the SOA approved two “concentrations” within the Master of Accountancy program: tax and audit/systems. In 2010-11, however, the number of MAcc graduates declined significantly to 41 and only marginally increased to 44 in 2011-12. This could be a result of the weak economy forcing students to seek employment sooner and opt for the 5th year rather than enrolling in the Macc. Our new Dean Dr. Moez Limayem is very focused on increasing enrollments in the specialized master’s programs in the College of Business. Through advertising in print and via social media, we hope to raise awareness of our MAcc offerings and boost enrollments. In fall 2012, a faculty committee has been created to explore the possibility of instituting a 3-2 program that would result in the awarding of both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in five years. If implemented, this option could have a significant positive impact on enrollments in the MAcc program.

5. Further address the focus and content of the PhD program.

In 2010 the SOA PhD committee recommended that an increased exposure to judgment and decision-making literature was needed. Dr. Uday Murthy, who specializes in behavioral research, has been closely involved in the doctoral program and continues to be involved despite moving into administration. With Dr. Lisa Gaynor being tenured and promoted to the rank of associate professor, we expect that her involvement with the doctoral program will increase (Dr. Gaynor is nationally known for audit judgment and decision-making research). All four doctoral students currently in the dissertation stage are working on judgment and decision-making research projects for their dissertations (three in managerial and one in audit). With Dr. Pat Wheeler joining the faculty in fall 2012, we have an additional tenured professor active in judgment and decision-making research who will be closely involved in the PhD program. Dr. Wheeler is teaching the PhD seminar in managerial accounting in fall 2012 and will be teaching the PhD seminar in experimental design in spring 2013. In addition to this increased focus on judgment and decision-making research, the SOA PhD committee also instituted a “second year paper” requirement to increase the research focus of the program.

- 8 -

6. Maintain and increase summer support for research active faculty at both the junior and senior levels.

Starting with the 2010-11 new hires, all tenure-earning new assistant professor hires receive a guaranteed $20,000 summer stipend for 3 years. In 2008-09, the College of Business initiated a summer grant program for junior and senior faculty not already receiving summer research support. This grant program provided two or three $12,500 summer research grants on a competitive basis every year. One SOA faculty member, Dr. Uday Murthy, was awarded such a grant for the summer of 2009. In tight budgetary times, it is unclear whether this summer research grant can be expanded, but our new Dean Moez Limayem has indicated support for the COB summer grant program. Within the SOA, KPMG funded a $25,000 per year faculty fellowship for a three year term in 2008-09. This faculty fellowship is currently held by Dr. Dahlia Robinson, who is an associate professor. In fall 2011, KPMG renewed their commitment for another three years.

7. Rectify the salary inversion problem among faculty.

Funds were provided by the university in one year over the 2008-12 period to make additions to base salary for high-performing faculty. These funds were an initial step in correcting the salary inversion problem. This will be an ongoing challenge—particularly in these lean budget years. We continue to have some tenured associate and full professors who are paid well below the average assistant professor’s salary. We are exploring ways in which our existing professorships and foundation funds can be utilized to provide salary supplements for deserving faculty. In fall 2012, we increased the professorship stipend for full professor Terry Engle to partly address the salary inversion issue.

8. Equitably solve the problem of significantly increased service workloads for existing senior faculty caused by the large number of retirements

The strength of the SOA faculty increased by four in fall 2012 with the hiring of an associate professor Dr. Pat Wheeler with tenure, instructor Ildiko Toth, as well as the addition of assistant professor Dr. Randy Kuhn and instructor Katie Davis from the now defunct USF Polytechnic in Lakeland. We now have additional faculty members to distribute the service workload so that no one faculty member is overloaded.

9. Reduce the service load of tenure-track faculty

Tenure-track faculty members have been placed on limited service commitments, commensurate with the proximity to tenure.

10. Make additional efforts to track the career success of accounting graduates.

The Office of Employer Relations in the College of Business has been sending out online surveys to graduating accounting students. In 2011-12 (fall, spring, summer), 62 out of 211 students graduating with a bachelor’s degree responded (29.4 percent response rate), while 29 out of 44 students graduating with a Master of Accountancy degree responded (66 percent response rate). The survey results indicate a fair degree of success in securing employment immediately upon graduation. To further improve the response rate on the survey of graduating students, we will make the survey available in multiple formats (paper, online) and distribute it in the course students take in their graduating semester. In addition, we are considering alternatives for tracking our graduates after they have left the SOA (e.g., LinkedIn).

- 9 -

3. Strategic Management

This section describes the SOA strategic management process. The SOA mission statement and strategic plan are summarized, following which the strategic management planning process and outcomes are discussed. Action items for the upcoming academic year and the financial plan for accomplishing them are also indicated.

3.1 Mission Statement and Summary of Strategic Plan

The School of Accountancy’s mission statement follows:

The USF School of Accountancy provides quality undergraduate, Master’s, and doctoral education delivered by caring faculty, creates and disseminates knowledge that advances the practice of accounting, and serves the community and profession.  

This mission statement was approved through an extensive off-site two-day strategic planning retreat in the spring of 2005. In the fall of 2007, another day-long off-site faculty retreat was conducted, at which the mission statement was reaffirmed. The SOA faculty approved a nonsubstantive change to the mission statement via email vote on November 1, 2007 to add the identification of the programs we service to the mission statement. The mission statement has not changed since then.

Related to the mission, the vision, value proposition, and strategic priorities of the School of Accountancy follow:

The USF School of Accountancy envisions itself to be a nationally‐recognized accounting program with a reputation for quality of graduates, scholarly achievement, and noteworthy service.   The School of Accountancy adds value to the academy and to the accounting profession by:  •  Educating students in accounting topics at the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral level •  Creating and disseminating knowledge in accounting and closely related fields •  Serving the academy, profession, and community •  Making effective and efficient use of the resources under its control  To achieve our vision and mission, our current strategic priorities are: •  Promote and enhance a dynamic learning environment •  Build a national reputation for scholarly contributions •  Develop and enhance the resource base to fund progress toward our vision •  Develop reward systems and structures to facilitate progress towards our vision 

The entire School of Accountancy strategic plan for 2011-12 is provided in Appendix 3.

- 10 -

3.2 Strategic Management Planning Process and Outcomes

The SOA Strategic Plan is a dynamic plan, reviewed regularly. During the first faculty meeting of each academic year, the faculty spend considerable time reviewing the current mission and vision statements and the strategic priorities that would foster the mission and vision of the SOA. Changes are made to elements of the strategic plan if the faculty deem it appropriate. In addition, the faculty review their performance for the previous academic year (ending on June 30) to determine whether “high priority action items” relating to the previous year were accomplished. At the same meeting, the SOA faculty collectively develop high priority “action items” for the forthcoming academic year. The high priority “action items,” the accountable entity for each action item, and the outcomes are fully documented in each year’s strategic planning document (the 2011-12 strategic plan is included in Appendix 3; the strategic planning documents for other years are available upon request).

The Strategic Plan begins with the mission and vision statements and contains strategic priorities and specific targets for each of the priorities. All elements of the document tie to the mission statement. The strategic themes are grouped in the following categories:

Teaching: Specific measures and targets are identified for the undergraduate accounting program, the MAcc program, and the doctoral program.

Research: Specific measures and targets are identified for faculty publication productivity, external grant submissions by faculty, and placement of graduates from the PhD program at doctoral granting institutions.

Service: Specific measures and targets are identified for the number of faculty serving on influential committees of academic and practitioner organizations within the accounting profession, faculty serving on COB and university-level committees at USF, faculty attendance at Beta Alpha Psi and/or student organization events, faculty serving on editorial review boards, and faculty providing continuing education presentations for accounting practitioners.

Resources: Specific measures and targets are identified for the generation of financial support for the SOA, including faculty fellowships, the annual CPE conference, and scholarships for SOA study abroad programs.

As the academic year progresses, individuals and committees report to the member in charge of accreditation and/or the SOA director regarding progress on action items set at the beginning of the year. At the faculty meeting held at the end of each spring semester, progress on the action item is reviewed by the SOA faculty.

Continuous Improvement Process and Outcomes

The SOA has a variety of programs in place to help ensure continuous improvement in all degree programs. Some examples of our best practices follow.

- 11 -

Quality Improvement Process (QIP)

The SOA has a formal QIP in operation, performed annually, covering the undergraduate, MAcc, and PhD programs. All functional areas of accounting are divided into QIP teams. Teams meet annually in the spring to review course content, rigor, and assess whether learning objectives for each functional area are being met. Every full-time SOA faculty member participates in QIP. The QIP is more fully described in the “Assessment Tools and Procedures” section of this report. Since 2006, all undergraduate accounting courses have had an assurance of learning assessment as part of the quality improvement process. Every required course in the accounting major, plus the two principles of accounting courses (as part of the business core), created master test banks of questions designed to test the course objectives. The test banks are keyed specifically to respective course objectives. Course coordinators select 10 questions from their test banks, taking care to ensure that the questions are representative of a wide range of course objectives. All instructors embed these questions on their exams. Targets for performance on these questions are set by the course coordinators and are subject to revision by the Quality Improvement Process teams during the spring meeting. Results were compiled and are presented in part four, “Assessment Tools and Procedures,” of the Fifth Year Maintenance Report.

Technology Enhancements

The SOA has a state-of-the-art technology room that was funded by private donations in 2001. The room is designed to accommodate 32 laptop computers, which are set up when needed for classes by a graduate assistant who runs the lab. The laptops are normally replaced every three to four years. The last time the laptops were replaced was in March 2008. Prior to 2009, both undergraduate and graduate accounting information systems (AIS) classes were held in this lab. However, due to enrollment pressures and the inability to offer more than two sections of the undergraduate AIS course, the lab is no longer used for undergraduate AIS classes. Graduate AIS classes and other graduate courses in the MAcc program continue to be held in the lab. The server controlling the lab has recently been “virtualized” so that the IT maintenance burden has shifted from the SOA to the central USF IT department.

In the undergraduate AIS course, students receive experience with Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access. In the graduate AIS course, students receive hands-on experience with a mid-tier enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, i.e., Microsoft Dynamics. In addition, students in the graduate AIS course obtain hands-on experience with SQL querying and creating XBRL-tagged financial statements. In fall 2012, the NetSuite cloud-based ERP system will be piloted in both the undergraduate and graduate AIS classes.

Program Improvements in the Undergraduate Accounting Program

The SOA implemented a “limited access” policy in 2005 to ensure that students graduating with an accounting degree from USF would be of high quality. The policy required that accounting students complete Intermediate I and Cost I and earn at least a C in both before they can take additional upper level accounting courses. Additionally, Intermediate I (the first financial accounting course for accounting majors) was instituted as a pre-requisite for Cost I, on the thinking that students would focus on Intermediate I and do better in the course. Although the limited access policy has improved the quality and retention of accounting majors, an unintended consequence of making Intermediate I a pre-requisite for Cost I was that students were being forced to take a heavier load

- 12 -

of accounting courses in subsequent semesters, with concomitant negative effects on their performance in those courses, potentially delaying their graduation. Consequently, two improvements have recently been instituted in the undergraduate program. Beginning fall 2009, students seeking to become accounting majors have been required to take a competency exam addressing financial accounting topics covered in the basic principles of financial accounting course. All students are required to take the competency exam, including transfer students. A minimum score of 35 out of 50 on this exam is required to declare accounting as a major. The second improvement is to drop Intermediate I as a pre-requisite for Cost I, allowing students who have passed the competency exam to take both courses in their first semester as accounting majors. We are in the process of analyzing data to ascertain whether these two improvements are having the intended effect.

Program Improvements in the Master of Accountancy (MAcc) Program

The MAcc program was significantly modified in fall 2010. Historically, the SOA had offered a tax track in the MAcc program, but due primarily to the lack of faculty members capable of teaching upper level tax courses we had decided to eliminate “tracks” in the MAcc program. The resultant MAcc degree had four required courses and six electives for the 30 required credit hours. Pursuant to numerous calls for the SOA to bring back the tax track, and given our ability to strategically hire a faculty member capable of teaching upper level tax courses (Ryan Huston), we decided to offer a “tax concentration” in the MAcc program, beginning in fall 2010. In accordance with university regulations, a “concentration” requires a set of four courses in a focused area and results in the concentration being noted on the student’s transcript upon graduation. Along with the tax concentration, we also decided to leverage our existing strengths in auditing and AIS to offer an “audit/systems” concentration, which similarly required a set of four courses in the audit/systems area. With the introduction of the tax concentration, we revisited the required set of four courses in the MAcc program, which were as follows:

ACG 6875 – Financial Reporting & Professional Issues

ACG 6932 – Integrative Accounting Seminar

ACG 6405 – Advanced Accounting Information Systems

ACG 6835 – Accounting Skills, Values, and Technology

The ACG 6835 course had been introduced into the MAcc program in fall 2006 with the goal of improving the IT and “soft skills” of our MAcc students. It was determined subsequently that the course was not accomplishing the intended objective of significantly enhancing the soft skills and technology skills of MAcc students. It was also decided that the ACG 6405 course (Advanced AIS) should not be required for students opting for the tax concentration. Consequently, the SOA faculty voted to drop ACG 6835 from the curriculum, and drop ACG 6405 as a required course for the MAcc degree. The current configuration of the MAcc program involves two required courses (ACG 6875 and ACG 6932), four courses from a suite of six courses for each of the tax and the audit/systems concentrations, two accounting electives, and two non-accounting electives. For students who do not want either the tax or the audit/systems concentrations, we still offer a “generalist” MAcc degree, which can be earned by taking the two required courses, six accounting

- 13 -

electives, and two non-accounting electives. Program checklists for the two concentrations and the “generalist” degree are shown in Appendix 4.

Program Improvements in the PhD Program

Since the last accreditation review, program improvements instituted in the SOA doctoral program have been aimed at enhancing the research orientation of the program. First, the number of courses PhD students are required to teach while in the program was decreased from six to four courses. This reduction allows for more time serving as a research assistant to a faculty member to acquire and hone research skills. Second, a “second year paper” requirement was instituted in 2009, in addition to the “first year paper” requirement that was already in place. Again, the objective of this change was to induce doctoral students to have a portfolio of papers upon graduation beyond just the dissertation. We are hopeful that these changes will result in our doctoral graduates having multiple working papers upon graduation.

Related to the first year paper requirement, we have developed a rubric to evaluate quality of the paper and the student’s workshop presentation. The purpose of this rubric is both to have an objective basis for evaluating doctoral student performance and also to provide substantive feedback to students so they can improve the quality of their papers and presentations.

A final improvement in the PhD program is the increased interaction with the USF Department of Psychology. We have been successful in getting our doctoral students accepted into doctoral level courses in psychology, for example social psychology and cognitive psychology. In the past, the Psychology department would not permit our students to take their doctoral courses. In addition, we have had two faculty members from the Psychology department serve as the outside member on doctoral dissertations. Given the behavioral focus of our doctoral program, this greater interaction with the Psychology department has been very beneficial for our PhD students.

3.3 Financial Strategies

This section of the Fifth Year Maintenance Report describes the primary funding sources for the SOA including state support and support from private sources via Foundation accounts. At the beginning of each academic year, the SOA faculty develop high priority action items for the forthcoming year. This section contains the high priority action items for the 2012-13 academic year and the plans to provide the necessary resources to achieve the action items.

SOA Funding Sources

The SOA has significant financial resources, including state support for faculty and staff salaries and expenses, and Foundation support from endowed funds. Table 2 shows a summary of financial resources projected for 2012-13, and, for the purpose of comparison, the projections for 2007-08 that were included in the prior AACSB maintenance report. While it may appear from the table that faculty salaries have actually dropped in 2012-13 compared to 2007-08, it is important to note that the 2007-08 salaries include faculty in Lakeland and Sarasota, whereas the 2012-13 number excludes accounting faculty and staff at USF Sarasota-Manatee.

- 14 -

TABLE 2 School of Accountancy Financial Resources

Projections for 2012-13 and 2007-08

2012-13 2007-08

State Support:

Faculty Salaries From COB $2,291,566 $2,293,750

Staff Salaries From COB 95,028 116,845

Expense Budget from COB 421,312 485,735

Total Direct Support from COB $2,807,906 $2,896,330

Foundation Support:

Professorship Salary & Staff Supplements $206,561 $192,721

Faculty Endowment Expense Support 15,500 61,792

Excellence Grants/Scholarships 101,250 123,594

Other (To include travel, association dues, research expenses, etc.)

32,500 21,084

Total Foundation Support $355,811 $399,191

Total Budgeted Resources for 2012-13 $3,163,717 $3,295,521

Fund Balances as of 6/30/12:

Market Value of Endowment Funds $5,275,781 $5,936,053

Balance of Operating Funds $997,253 $416,269

Balance in Jim & Leacy Quinn Trust $741,042 $890,987

Total Fund Balances $7,014,076 $7,243,309

Also worth noting in Table 2 is that the market value of SOA endowments has fallen from $5.9 million in 2007 to about $5.3 million in 2012. The operating fund balance, however, is significantly higher in 2012 compared to 2007. Of the almost $1.0 million balance in operating funds, approximately $0.3 million represents unrestricted funds that could be used to support SOA initiatives other than student scholarships and faculty stipends, which are funded from separate restricted foundation accounts.

Table 3 shows the fund balances as of June 30, 2012 for all SOA endowed funds. The two largest endowed funds are the Jim & Leacy Quinn Fund supporting the Quinn Chair, which is currently

- 15 -

held by Dr. Uday Murthy, and the Dan & Tina Johnson Distinguished Professorship Fund, which is currently open (it was held by Dr. Stephanie Bryant, who left the SOA in 2011).

TABLE 3 SOA Endowed Funds

As of June 30, 2012

Market Value Dan & Tina Johnson Distinguished Professorship

$ 985,044

Laura Bedingfield Memorial Endowment Fund

11,741

R.C.Unger MA/CPA Memorial Scholar

24,422

William L. Stephens Endowed Service Professorship

297,439

Dr. Robert M. Keith Endowed Teaching Professorship

386,390

The Private Entities Endowed Research Fund

35,669

Deloitte Endowed Scholarship

46,455

Grant Thornton’s Director’s Fund for Excellence

100,896

PWC Endowed Scholarship in Accounting

20,095

Jim & Leacy Quinn Chair in Accounting

1,911,295

Ernst & Young Endowed Scholarship in Accounting

35,788

School of Accountancy/Law Endowment

58,111

FICPA Endowed Scholarship in Accounting

197,403

James E Rooks Jr Endowed Professorship

551,510

Advisory Council Professorship

446,366

J.T. Ball/FASB Fellows Scholarship

167,157

TOTAL

$5,275,781

- 16 -

Action Items and Financial Plans for 2012-13

The SOA’s mission statement, strategic priorities, and action items related to the strategic priorities are contained in the Master SOA Strategic Plan, included in Appendix 3. Table 4 below contains the strategic priorities and the action items voted on by faculty at the September 7, 2012 faculty meeting. One strategic priority related to resource generation has been omitted from the table below. For action items requiring resources, the amount of funds required and the source of funds are indicated.

TABLE 4

Funding for Action Items Related to Strategic Priorities

Strategic Priority (SP) / Action Items (AI) Funds required

Source of Funds

SP#1: Promote and maintain a dynamic learning environment AI1. Create task force to explore options such as a 3-2 full-time (day

classes) combined Bachelor’s and Master’s program, and a revenue-generating night/weekend Master’s program

None NA

AI2. Offer a live CPA Review Program to bolster performance on CPA exam

$21,000 SOA operating funds

AI3. Pilot the use of new instructional technologies None NA AI4. Initiate “Professor for (part of) a Day” program to incentivize

and recognize practitioner involvement in teaching accounting courses

$1,000 for speaker gifts

SOA operating funds

AI5. Integrate research findings into accounting courses None NA AI6. Promote creation of a teaching portfolio for doctoral students

and adjunct faculty None NA

SP#2: Strengthen reputation for scholarly contributions AI7. Provide summer research grants for SOA faculty not already

receiving summer support $12,500 SOA operating

funds AI8. Present research papers at other universities and national

conferences $2,500 COB travel funds

and/or SOA operating funds

SP#3: Enhance focus on innovative, relevant, and interdisciplinary research

AI9: Engage with external organizations to enhance relevance of research and obtain access to participants and data for research projects

None NA

- 17 -

Strategic Priority (SP) / Action Items (AI) Funds required

Source of Funds

SP#4: Engage with the business community to strengthen bidirectional links between teaching and practice, practice and research

AI10: Initiate faculty contacts with businesses to obtain feedback on leading-edge business practices for enhancing the accounting curriculum and identifying internship opportunities

Professional development leave (Celina

Jozsi)

University

AI11: Develop semi-annual “SOA research highlights bulletin” for dissemination to Advisory Council

$1,000 SOA operating funds

SP#5: Enhance reward systems and structures to further progress towards our vision

AI12: Explore initiation of a formal “exit interview” process for graduating students to obtain feedback on curriculum and program

None NA

AI13: Solicit feedback from students and alumni on placement success and curriculum effectiveness

None NA

AI14: Explore ways to incentivize teaching with a bonus system $6,000 ($2,000 per teaching

award, 3 awards)

SOA operating funds

Not indicated as a specific action item in the above table is the SOA’s ongoing study abroad program and funding related to it. Study abroad trips for accounting students were conducted in three years during the current accreditation window: 2009 (Western Europe), 2010 (Eastern and Western Europe), and 2012 (India). The SOA has been able to provide scholarships ranging from $1,500 to $2,000 per student for up to 15 students per trip. Through the generosity of Advisory Council members, we have been able to raise funds for the SOA Study Abroad Scholarship Fund. This fund currently has $67,898 available for future scholarships. We are in the preliminary stage of planning a study abroad trip to South America (Argentina and Brazil) in July-August 2013, which will be led by Celina Jozsi. We will be able to provide $1,500 scholarships for up to 15 students for the 2013 SOA Study Abroad Program.

3.4 New Degree Programs

The School of Accountancy does not have any new degree programs that have been started since the last accreditation maintenance visit. The MAcc program, however, has been enhanced through the creation of the “audit/systems” and “tax” concentrations. With four courses in either of these two areas, MAcc graduates are eligible to have the concentration designation indicated on their transcript. These concentrations have been available since 2010. The impact of these concentrations on enrollments remains unclear, as we have not seen a significant growth (or decline) in student demand for the MAcc program.

- 18 -

3.5 Intellectual Contributions

The intellectual contributions of SOA full-time and part-time faculty are summarized in Table 31-1 (Table 2-1 in the COB maintenance of accreditation report), included in Appendix 5. Tenured and tenure-track faculty in the SOA in fall 2012 have produced a total of 40 peer-reviewed journal articles between 2007 and 2012. Of this total, 23 peer-reviewed journal articles were published by full professors, eight by associate professors, and nine by assistant professors. In terms of the areas in which SOA faculty members have published, the majority of intellectual contributions are in behavioral AIS and auditing (Engle, Gaynor, Murthy, Mellon), with additional contributions in archival financial, auditing, and tax (Huston, Robinson).

Collectively, SOA faculty members have published in the following leading journals (among others) since the last accreditation visit: The Accounting Review, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Journal of the American Taxation Association, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Journal of Information Systems, and Accounting Horizons. Uday Murthy received the College of Business “Outstanding Achievement in Research” award for 2009, which also included a summer research grant for summer 2010. In addition, Jackie Reck was the recipient of the American Accounting Association, Information Section’s Notable Contribution to Research Award in 2009.

The quantity, quality, and breadth of publications indicated above provide evidence that a substantial cross-section of SOA faculty have made intellectual contributions, consistent with the mission of the SOA and the COB. As indicated in Table 31-1 in the SOA report (see Appendix 5), beyond publications in peer-reviewed journals, SOA faculty members have made a number of research presentations at professional meetings and at SOA Friday workshops.

In terms of infrastructure support for research, faculty members who specialize in archival research in financial accounting, auditing, and taxation have access to most databases required for such research. The COB has an active subscription to the Wharton Research Data Service (WRDS), through which databases such as Compustat, CRSP, and Audit Analytics can be accessed. To support faculty members engaged in behavioral (experimental) research, the SOA has an “experimental research participation” protocol, whereby students in certain classes can be required to participate in an SOA research project conducted by a faculty member or doctoral student. Details of this experimental participation protocol can be viewed in the SOA Policy Manual, included in Appendix 6. Additional support for behavioral research is available through funds to pay participants in studies and programmers for customized computer-based experiments.

Beyond the aforementioned resources, untenured assistant professors are provided with minimal teaching preparations and summer research grants to allow them the time needed to pursue research projects capable of resulting in top-tier publications. Additionally, a number of research-active faculty members received “research semesters” (no teaching semesters) during the period under accreditation review. In spring 2011, Lisa Gaynor (then an assistant professor) received a research semester. In spring 2012, three assistant professors received research semesters: Janet Huston, Ryan Huston, and Mark Mellon. In addition, a full professor (Uday Murthy) received a research semester in fall 2008.

As an incentive to publish in top tier journals, the SOA instituted a research award program in 2009. The award program provides a one-time payment of $4,000 for a publication in a top-tier

- 19 -

publication (i.e., a publication in one of the “top six” accounting journals). The criterion for the award was subsequently made more objective: the impact factor of the journal in which the publication appears must exceed 1.0. In addition to the “top six” accounting journals (The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting, Organisations & Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies), the other major accounting journal to have an impact factor exceeding 1.0 is Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. The award program also applies for top-tier publications in other disciplines (e.g., finance, information systems, psychology, etc.). Four SOA faculty members have received award payments under this program: Terry Engle, Lisa Gaynor, Uday Murthy, and Jackie Reck.

- 20 -

4. Participants

This section summarizes the student and faculty characteristics in the SOA.

4.1 Student Characteristics

In the 2011-12 academic year, student headcount was 765 undergraduate accounting majors and 121 Master of Accountancy majors, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the undergraduate and 32 percent of the graduate student headcount in the College of Business (COB). In 2007-08 by comparison, the headcount of undergraduate students was 707 and the headcount of Master’s students was 123. In fall 2012, the SOA had nine doctoral students in residence, of which, two have defended their dissertation proposals, another two are all-but-dissertation, and the remaining five are in earlier stages of the program. Table 5 below shows both headcount and student credit hours for undergraduate accounting students (declared accounting majors) and Master of Accountancy students from 2007-08 to 2011-12. Also shown is the number of doctoral students over the same time period.

TABLE 5 Undergraduate and Graduate Headcount and Student Credit Hours, 2007-12

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Undergraduate Headcount 707 602 596 702 765

SCH 20,019 18,969 18,591 17,085 17,556

Master's Headcount 123 129 112 109 121

SCH 3,139 3,259 2,848 3,024 1,944

PhD Headcount 8 7 8 7 9

Table 6 shows a comparison between 2007-08 and 2011-12 in terms of enrollment of juniors (3rd year), seniors and fifth year students, and graduate students, for the fall, spring, and summer terms.

TABLE 6 Enrollment Trends by Semester and Student Level

2007-08 2011-12

3rd Year 4th & 5th year Graduate 3rd Year 4th & 5th year Graduate

Fall 168 446 87 170 481 96

Spring 134 444 80 148 438 71

Summer 78 346 65 101 380 72

The enrollment numbers in Table 6 suggest that the preferred path for students to obtain the 150 hours for CPA licensure is the “fifth year” option rather than the Master of Accountancy graduate

- 21 -

program. This preference is evident in the “4th and 5th year” column numbers being more than double the “3rd year” numbers, for 2007-08 as well as for 2011-12. It is likely that the GMAT requirement, the process of applying, and the standards required for admission into the Master of Accountancy program individually or collectively represent a deterrent for a large number of accounting students, which explains the popularity of the “fifth year” option.

The trend in applicants and admits to the Master of Accountancy program is shown in Table 7. There has been some fluctuation in the number of applicants to the MAcc program, with an increasing trend through fall 2010 followed by a decreasing trend thereafter.

TABLE 7 Master of Accountancy Applications, Acceptances, Enrollment, and Degrees

Academic year No. of applicants

No. (%) accepted

No. (%) enrolled

No. of degrees awarded

Fall 2007 72 37 (51%) 28 (76%) 15

Spring 2008 49 28 (57%) 20 (71%) 19

Fall 2008 91 51 (56%) 35 (69%) 25

Spring 2009 49 28 (57%) 20 (71%) 10

Fall 2009 105 35 (33%) 22 (63%) 26

Spring 2010 47 24 (51%) 15 (63%) 16

Fall 2010 122 46 (38%) 28 (61%) 14

Spring 2011 47 25 (53%) 15 (60%) 18

Fall 2011 100 52 (52%) 37 (71%) 21

Spring 2012 56 22 (39%) 17 (77%) 11

Fall 2012 72 37 (51%) 28 (76%) N/A

Going forward, it will be important for the SOA to improve enrollment in the MAcc program. As indicated earlier, the popularity of the “fifth year” option is the most likely reason for limited growth in the MAcc program. In fall 2012, we have begun exploring the “3-2” option, which would entail eliminating the “fifth year” option and providing a more structured program that would result in the awarding of both the baccalaureate and the master’s degree in five years. A number of universities in states with the 150 hour CPA requirement provide such a five-year program.

4.2 Faculty Characteristics

As of fall 2012, the SOA has 16 full-time faculty members in Accounting and one full-time faculty member in Business Law. Between the 2009-10 and 2011-12 academic years, we had a visiting professor position that was held by a PhD-qualified instructor, Michael Robinson. In fall 2012, this visiting professor position is being held by Ashwinpaul (Tony) Sondhi, who is also PhD-qualified. Dr. Sondhi is teaching courses in the MAcc and MBA programs and will also be teaching upper level financial accounting courses in spring 2013. In addition, the SOA uses between four and six adjunct instructors every semester who primarily teach lower-level accounting courses. We have employed a few PhD qualified instructors as adjuncts to teach upper-level and MBA courses. For example, Dr. Jerry Lander, has been teaching an upper level course (Advanced Financial Accounting), which had previously been taught by William Parrott, a long-time tenured faculty member who retired in 2010. Also, Dr. William Stephens and Dr. Richard Fleischman have taught

- 22 -

MBA courses. Table 8 shows the number of full-time SOA faculty from 2007 through 2012 at all ranks.

TABLE 8 Full-Time SOA Faculty (excluding Business Law)

Fall 2007 through Fall 2012

Rank Fall 2007+

Fall 2008+

Fall 2009

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2012

Full Professors 2 2 4 4 3 3

Associate Professors 4 4 2 2 2 4

Assistant Professors 9 9 4 5 5 5

Instructor/Lecturers 8 5 4 2 2 4

Totals 23 20 14 13 12 16 +Includes Sarasota, which became autonomous in 2009

We have had a fair degree of faculty attrition since the last accreditation review. Between fall 2008 and fall 2009, four assistant professors left the SOA: Jennifer Kahle, Andrea Kelton, Brad Schafer, and Nathan Stuart. These departures were either because of a move to another university, denial of tenure, or an unfavorable third-year review. Upon completion of her PhD, Bei Dong was made an assistant professor in fall 2009, after serving as an instructor for the prior year. Also in fall 2009, two associate professors—Stephanie Bryant and Jacqueline Reck—were promoted from the rank of associate to full professor. One full professor, Stephanie Bryant, left the SOA in 2011. In fall 2010, Dahlia Robinson was granted tenure and promoted to the rank of associate professor, and we also had a faculty retirement: Associate Professor William Parrott. Also in fall 2010, we hired three assistant professors: Ryan Huston, Janet McDonald, and Mark Mellon; one assistant professor left due to an unfavorable third-year review. In fall 2012, one assistant professor was granted tenure and promoted to the rank of associate professor: Lisa Gaynor. Two faculty members were hired to start in fall 2012: Patrick Wheeler was hired as an associate professor with tenure, and Ildiko Toth was hired as an instructor. In addition, with the dissolution of USF Polytechnic in Lakeland, two faculty members were added to the Tampa campus—Randy Kuhn as an assistant professor and Katie Davis as an instructor.

4.3 Faculty Management Policies

Committee Structure

The Director of the SOA and faculty committees work together to implement the plans and programs necessary to accomplish the goals of the SOA. The SOA Policy Statement document outlines all established SOA policies. This document was last updated on September 27, 2011 following a thorough review by “Committee A.” The current version of this document is included as Appendix 6 to this report.

- 23 -

The SOA has the following annually elected standing committees:

1. Promotion and Tenure 2. Committee A 3. Faculty Fund Committee

Promotion and Tenure Committee: All tenured faculty members serve on this committee. In effect, this committee is a “committee of the whole.” The purpose of the Promotion and Tenure (“P&T”) committee is to provide a departmental level review and recommendation on all SOA faculty who are up for third-year review, promotion, and tenure. A tenured faculty member on the P&T committee can only vote on candidates seeking tenure/promotion to that faculty member’s rank or lower (i.e., an associate professor cannot vote on promotion to full professor).

Committee A: This committee consists of five members in tenured or tenure-earning positions. Committee A is a resource that can be used by individual faculty members and the Director of the SOA. Individuals may call upon Committee A for advice, for the resolution of disputes, and for personal peer review. Committee A has an advisory function and may not overrule the decisions of the Director or other committees of the SOA. Committee A annually reviews the SOA Policy Statement and prepares the summer rotation schedule (that determines who has priority for summer teaching, in the event there is limited funds for summer teaching). Committee A is used on an ad hoc basis for other matters, as previously described.

Faculty Fund Committee: The Faculty Fund Committee consists of three elected faculty. The function of the committee is to ensure equitable distribution of donated discretionary funds to encourage faculty development, teaching, research, service, and other objectives of the SOA. The committee annually determines travel reimbursement policies and approves travel prior to the occurrence of the travel.

The Director also appoints a SOA Curriculum Committee, Quality Improvement Process Committees, Scholarship Committee, MAcc Committee, PhD Committee, and other committees as needed. A detailed description of these committees is contained in the “School of Accountancy Policy Statements” included in the appendices.

Recruiting Process

In light of retirements as well as voluntary and involuntary departures of faculty members, the SOA has had an active recruiting agenda for the past five years, hiring five faculty since 2008 (including two starting in fall 2012. Table 9 below lists faculty we have hired in the past five years.

TABLE 9 Full-Time Permanent Faculty Hires

2008-2012

Year Faculty Hired PhD From Rank of Faculty Hired

Area of Specialty

2010 Ryan Huston Texas A&M University Assistant Professor Tax/Financial

- 24 -

2010 Janet McDonald Huston

Texas A&M University Assistant Professor Financial

2010 Mark Mellon Florida State University Assistant Professor Cost/Managerial/ Audit

2012 Patrick Wheeler Georgia State University Associate Professor Systems

2011 Carol Vance University of South Florida (MAcc degree)

Instructor Tax/Business Law

2012 Ildiko Toth University of Illinois (MAcc degree)

Instructor Tax/Financial

The SOA is not engaged in recruiting for the 2012-13 year, but has just been authorized to hire an instructor for fall 2013. The faculty recruiting process begins with the SOA Director developing a detailed search plan, which must be approved by the Dean of the COB. The search plan details the recruiting committee chair, the committee members (who are selected on the basis of the functional expertise we are hiring for), the time frame, and the minimum qualifications for the job. The search committee screens vitas and identifies candidates of interest. The committee conducts phone interviews as needed, and subsequently ranks the candidates. The search committee chair then provides a report to the Director identifying the top-ranked candidates. The SOA Director and COB Dean jointly decide who to bring to campus for on-campus interviews. The top candidates visit campus and meet with the faculty and Dean, and present a research workshop. All faculty members are invited to provide written input to the Search Committee. The Search Committee considers the faculty input and provides an unranked list of acceptable candidates, with the strengths and weaknesses of each, to the SOA Director. From the list of acceptable candidates, the Director and Dean decide to whom offers will be extended.

Orientation Process

New faculty members go through an extensive two-day orientation at the university level. This orientation session acclimatizes new faculty to university procedures, including human resources, library resources, and the university history.

In addition to the university orientation, new faculty members meet with the Director at the beginning of the academic year for departmental orientation. A formal orientation process is followed, and new hires are given copies of all SOA policies. The Director discusses resources available to faculty, and all formal policies such as summer rotation, office hours, process when classes cannot meet, make-up exams, promotion and tenure standards, service expectations, outside employment, assigned duties, QIP administration, and selection of teaching and research mentors. New faculty members select who they want as their teaching mentor and research mentor. These are normally experienced faculty in the same area of teaching and research as the new hire. The script followed in the meeting is included as Appendix 7 of this report.

- 25 -

Promotion and Tenure Process

The SOA abides by the College of Business guidelines for tenure and promotion, which are available at http://business.usf.edu/_docs/policies/TenurePromotion.pdf. The COB tenure and promotion criteria were last revised in January 2009. One of the most important changes made was to require an “outstanding” rating in research in order to be promoted and tenured; the previous standard called for an “outstanding” rating in either teaching or research, with at least a “strong” rating in the other category. This change was prompted by the need to raise research standards in the College of Business to be consistent with the university’s aspiration towards membership in the prestigious Association for American Universities (AAU).

Newly hired untenured assistant professors develop goals and objectives at the start of their first year. At the end of the first year, and at the end of each subsequent year, these individuals prepare self-evaluations on their progress towards meeting their goals. All faculty members are evaluated annually by the SOA Director. For untenured tenure-track faculty members, the evaluation focuses primarily on progress towards tenure. Faculty members are given formal written evaluations for each of the three categories of performance: research, teaching, and service.

Untenured assistant professors are required to undergo a formal “third-year review” process. In the past, this process was conducted at the beginning of the fourth year. However, the process is now conducted at the end of the third year on the tenure clock. The process begins with the faculty member creating a portfolio documenting his/her research, teaching, and service accomplishments. The third-year review application packet mirrors the promotion and tenure packet, with the exception that letters from outside evaluators are not required. The SOA Promotion & Tenure committee meets to evaluate the applicant’s performance. A rating is assigned for each of the three performance categories (research, teaching, and service), as well as an overall rating. The committee’s evaluation includes an overall assessment of whether the candidate is making satisfactory progress towards tenure. While publications in well-regarded peer reviewed journals provide the best evidence of progress towards tenure, journal submissions with a “revise and resubmit” status and working papers can also provide evidence of satisfactory progress towards tenure.

The SOA Director independently evaluates candidates for third-year review and for promotion and tenure. The Director’s evaluation includes an assessment of the candidate’s performance in research, teaching, service and an overall rating. The Director also assesses the degree to which the candidate has made progress towards tenure and promotion. The application is then evaluated at the College level by the COB Promotion and Tenure Committee, which performs its own evaluation following the same process. The application goes to the Dean, who makes the final decision on retention. (Note: COB tenured faculty members do not participate in the mid-point review process. This step is reserved for promotion and tenure decisions at the associate and full professor levels.)

At the beginning of the sixth year of service, assistant professors come up for promotion to associate professor and tenure. An identical process is followed as that of the third-year review, with the exception that the applicant must obtain three-five external letters from respected full professors in his/her field of research who can comment on the quality of the applicant’s scholarship. The applicant supplies six-eight names of respected researchers in his/her field, and the Director consults with the COB Dean to select the individuals from whom external letters will be solicited.

- 26 -

Additionally, the entire COB conducts a promotion and tenure meeting at which all tenured professors who have not previously voted are eligible to vote on the candidate.

For a successful promotion and tenure review outcome, publication in high quality peer-reviewed research journals is essential. The COB P&T document states:

Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor requires: 1. Outstanding performance in research, 2. At least strong performance in teaching, and 3. Acceptable service contributions.

Outstanding performance in research can be demonstrated by publishing in academic journals in the candidate’s field that are widely recognized as being top ranked. Outstanding performance in research can also be demonstrated by publications in other respected academic outlets that constitute a focused program of research achievement. It is the responsibility of the candidate to present compelling evidence that one of the above criteria for outstanding performance in research has been met and that the candidate is achieving a national reputation for research contributions.

Current standards for promotion and tenure do not specifically indicate the number and quality of publications required for an “outstanding” rating in research. As indicated in the above extract from the COB T&P document, the standard simply calls for publications in “top ranked” journals. In accounting, the interpretation of this standard is that the candidate should have at least one publication in one of the “top six” accounting journals (The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting, Organisations & Society, and Review of Accounting Studies). The wording above, however, does provide a second path to obtaining the “outstanding” research if a candidate has not published in a top ranked journal. The burden of proof, however, falls on the candidate to establish that he/she has published in “respected academic outlets that constitute a focused program of research achievement” and that the candidate is “…achieving a national reputation for research contributions.”

Faculty Retention and Development

In the past five years, the SOA has had a number of faculty departures for reasons of retirement, voluntary moves to other universities, and terminations. These departures are catalogued in Table 10 below.

TABLE 10 Full-Time Permanent Faculty Retirements/Resignations/Non-Renewals

2007-08 to 2011-12

Year Faculty Member Rank Specialties Reason

2008-09 Teresa Price Instructor Auditing Not reappointed

2008-09 Jennifer Kahle-Schafer

Assistant Professor Tax Denied tenure

- 27 -

2008-09 Brad Schafer Assistant Professor Auditing, Systems Did not go up for tenure, contract expired

2008-09 Nathan Stuart Assistant Professor Managerial Contract not renewed (midpoint review)

2008-09 Andrea Kelton Assistant Professor Systems Resigned

2009-10 Maureen Butler Assistant Professor Managerial Contract not renewed (midpoint review)

2010-11 William Parrott Associate Professor Financial Retired

2011-12 Carol Vance Instructor Tax/Business Law Not reappointed

2011-12 Stephanie Bryant Professor Systems Resigned

Non-renewal of contracts of tenure-track faculty members at the midpoint review stage was because their research productivity was below expectations. Of the two faculty members who resigned, one was drawn to an opportunity to move closer to extended family (Andrea Kelton), while another left to become Dean (Stephanie Bryant).

In an effort to maximize the time junior untenured faculty can spend on research, they are provided with teaching loads of two courses per semester (2/2) with minimal teaching preparations. They are also provided with summer funding for the first three years so that the summers can be devoted to research. Service commitments are minimal in the first year of employment, consisting only of curriculum-based service (QIP teams for example). Beginning in the second year of employment, faculty are expected to serve on departmental and/or college committees as needed. However, the Director attempts to minimize the service commitments as much as possible until the faculty member gains tenure.

Tenured associate professors continue on 2/2 teaching loads so long as they remain research active. While tenured professors are expected to teach upper level accounting courses, including doctoral seminars, every effort is made to keep the number of new teaching preparations to a minimum so that they can continue to publish in high quality journals as necessary to be promoted to the rank of full professor. Both associate and full professors are expected to serve on and chair doctoral dissertation committees, although only two full professors have chaired or co-chaired doctoral dissertation committees for the last ten years (Uday Murthy and Jackie Reck).

Faculty Support

The SOA provides significant support for development of faculty, including:

Newly hired tenure-track faculty are paid salaries commensurate with the 75th percentile of AACSB for a Research I institution.

Newly hired faculty receive three summers of pay at 12.5 percent of their respective nine-month salary.

Newly hired faculty receive a new desktop computer plus a $3,500 start-up fund from which they may purchase anything needed to support the faculty member’s teaching and research needs (for example, laptop computer, data, subscriptions, books, etc.).

- 28 -

The COB provides excellent research resources, including WRDS which provides access to Compustat, CRSP, IBES, Audit Analytics, and other research databases.

The SOA provides excellent travel support to all research-active faculty members. Faculty presenting a paper at the AAA annual meeting and/or a AAA section meeting have all reasonable expenses paid. If a faculty member is not on the program, the faculty member may still receive up to $1,200 travel support to attend both the annual meeting and a mid-year meeting. Additional meetings may be funded in some circumstances.

The SOA pays paper submission fees, membership dues for professional and academic organizations, and the cost of some continuing professional education.

Instructors also receive a travel allowance for travel to professional conferences as may be required to obtain continuing professional education hours and/or to maintain status as a professionally qualified faculty member. Additionally, they receive an annual CPE allotment of $400 and dues allotment of $500, identical to tenured and tenure-earning faculty.

Faculty Qualifications

The SOA adopts the same definition for Academically Qualified (AQ) and Professionally Qualified (PQ) status as the College of Business. As with all COB faculty, AQ status for SOA faculty is achieved based on academic preparation and maintained by publishing in appropriate peer-reviewed publications. Other published contributions may also be considered if they have the potential for scholarly impact. Professionally Qualified status requires a minimum of 18 hours of graduate work in the field and evidence of continuing professional development.

Achieving AQ Status: The normal expectation is that AQ faculty will have an earned doctorate from an institution at which the ability to conduct original research intended to make a substantive contribution to the field is a key element of the program. For AQ faculty without academic preparation in the field in which they teach or a related field, research activity leading to publications in the field in which they teach or additional academic preparation/professional experience must be demonstrated. Doctoral students who have completed at least 18 hours of graduate work in their discipline and are no more than three years beyond the completion of their comprehensive exams are considered to have met the academic preparation requirement and are considered academically qualified.

Maintaining AQ Status: To maintain AQ status, faculty members must have published at least two articles or equivalent intellectual contributions, including scholarly books, research monographs, or sections/chapters of such publications, subject to peer review within the previous five years. Other published contributions may also be considered if they have the potential for scholarly impact. Overall, 60 percent of faculty members within the SOA are expected to maintain AQ status. Faculty who teach in the doctoral program are expected to maintain AQ status via discipline-based research in peer-reviewed publications. Faculty whose principal teaching assignments are in the MAcc program and the undergraduate program may develop a portfolio of peer-reviewed intellectual contributions that includes discipline-based research, contributions to practice, and contributions to learning/pedagogy. Faculty who have recently completed a doctorate are considered AQ for five years from the date of the degree.

- 29 -

Achieving PQ Status: Professionally Qualified (PQ) status is achieved by fulfilling two requirements:

1. A master’s degree (or equivalent qualification) in a discipline or field related to the area of teaching responsibilities;

2. Professional experience at the time of hiring that is significant in duration and level of responsibility and consistent with the area of teaching responsibilities

Maintaining PQ Status: All faculty are expected to maintain continuing intellectual development activities consistent with teaching responsibilities. Standards for maintaining PQ status differ for supporting and participating faculty. Supporting faculty may maintain PQ status by continuing substantial employment, or other appropriate professional activity, or by any of the means available to AQ faculty. Participating faculty may demonstrate continuing intellectual development in either of two arenas:

1. Academic activity in the field such as articles written, conference presentations, case research and writing, and/or other scholarly work, or,

2. Professional activity in the field such as participation in workshops, technical and trade publications, maintaining professional certification, consulting, serving as an expert witness, and other applied pursuits. To remain PQ, participating faculty must have performed at least two of the demonstrations of currency within the past five years.

The SOA portions of AACSB Tables 10-1 and 10-2, which summarize faculty qualifications, are included in Appendix 5. As indicated in AACSB Table 10-1, nine of 11 tenure-track faculty are academically qualified while the remaining two are professionally qualified. Both full-time instructors are professionally qualified. As shown in AACSB Table 10-2, including teaching by adjunct and visiting faculty, our qualification ratio is 70 percent academically qualified, which is well above the 50 percent benchmark. Relative to the required ratio of 90 percent being either academically or professionally qualified, our ratio is 100 percent.

Faculty Sufficiency

Per AACSB standards, at least 60 percent of faculty members must be “participating” faculty, meaning that they have a commitment beyond teaching. The COB aims for 75 percent of faculty to be participating members.

Participating Faculty: A participating faculty member actively engages in the activities of the SOA in matters beyond direct teaching responsibilities. Examples include policy decisions, setting educational direction, advising, research, and service commitments. The faculty member may participate in the governance and be eligible to serve on committees that engage in academic policymaking and/or other decisions. S/he may engage in non-class activities, provide academic and career advising, and represent the SOA on institutional committees and may be eligible for, and participate in, faculty development activities and non-teaching assignments. According to SOA policy, only full-time faculty members (at all levels) and Emeritus Professors engaged as adjunct instructors can be considered participating faculty.

Supporting Faculty: A supporting faculty member does not participate in the intellectual or operational life of the SOA beyond the direct performance of teaching responsibilities. A supporting

- 30 -

faculty member does not have deliberative or involvement rights on faculty issues or have membership on faculty committees, nor is the individual assigned responsibilities beyond direct teaching functions (i.e., classroom and office hours). A supporting faculty member’s appointment is usually limited to teaching responsibilities.

The SOA portion of AACSB Table 9-1, included in Appendix 5, provides evidence of faculty sufficiency within the SOA. In the COB, business law has administratively been included within the School of Accountancy. The business law course is currently being taught by one participating faculty member, Robert Welker, and one supporting faculty member, Frank Brown. Including these two faculty members, the participating to supporting ratio is 63 percent, which is above the 60 percent benchmark. Excluding these two faculty members, the participating to supporting ratio is 73 percent, which is close to the COB goal of 75 percent participating faculty members.

- 31 -

5. Assurance of Learning

5.1 Curricula Development

There have not been any significant curricular changes in the undergraduate or doctoral programs since the last accreditation review. However, minor changes to individual courses in both the undergraduate and doctoral programs are made on an annual basis following our “quality improvement process” (QIP) meeting in the spring semester. These changes are made by faculty members pursuant to a discussion of assessment results with other members of the QIP team by course or program area. In addition, individual faculty members update their courses every year to ensure currency of content given the significant changes affecting the profession of accountancy.

In the Master of Accountancy program, the “Information Technology Auditing” course (ACG 6457) was significantly revamped following the adoption of the “audit/systems” concentration. Although the course was listed in the graduate catalog, it had not been offered for a number of years, primarily due to the lack of faculty resources. With the elimination of the “Advanced Accounting Information Systems” (ACG 6405) as a required course in the MAcc program, the faculty member teaching this course (Uday Murthy) was able to teach both the ACG 6405 course and the ACG 6457 course in the fall and spring semesters, respectively.

5.2 Assessment Tools and Procedures

This section provides a brief statement of learning objectives for each of the three degree programs offered by the SOA (i.e., Baccalaureate, Master of Accountancy (MAcc), and PhD in Accounting). All three programs are assessed annually during an all-day Quality Improvement Process (QIP) session held in the spring semester. In addition, this section provides a list of assessment tools and procedures that are being utilized, the most recent outcomes from those assessments, and a brief description of how the information from the outcome assessments affects program offerings. The information will demonstrate “assurance of learning” for each of the three degree programs, including the “closing the loop” process.

Quality Improvement Process

Several faculty committees are primarily responsible for monitoring and assessing the three degree programs offered by the SOA. The SOA Undergraduate Curriculum Committee is responsible for the baccalaureate program, the MAcc Committee is responsible for the MAcc program, and the PhD Committee evaluates the doctoral program. As indicated above, the SOA uses a formal Quality Improvement Process (QIP) to assist in assuring the highest quality educational experience for its students. During the annual day-long QIP session, teams for each functional area (e.g., auditing, tax, financial) and degree program meet to exchange ideas for improving the content and pedagogy of the courses, review and discuss assessment results, discuss curriculum changes necessary to address areas of deficiency (if any), and assess the appropriateness of the content and pedagogy used during the past year. Each of these sub-groups has a Chair who is responsible for writing a report summarizing the findings, and resulting recommendations of his or her group. The report is sent to the faculty member serving as QIP Coordinator; for 2011-2012 Dr. Uday Murthy fulfilled this responsibility and for 2012-2013, Ildiko Toth serves in this role. The QIP Coordinator

- 32 -

is responsible for submitting a comprehensive written report to the Director of the SOA. The report summarizes the recommendations of the QIP teams. The Director of the SOA is responsible for studying the report and ensuring that appropriate actions are taken. A more detailed description of the QIP process is contained in a document titled: “School of Accountancy Quality Improvement Process,” included in Appendix 8 to this report.

Undergraduate Program

The program objectives and related learning objectives for the baccalaureate degree program in accounting are contained in a document titled: “Academic Learning Compact-College of Business Administration-Accounting.”

Program Objectives

A four-year degree with a major in accounting prepares graduates to enter the accounting profession in a variety of industry, not-for-profit, governmental, and public accounting positions in which professional competence, team building, oral and written communication skills, analytical ability and information technology proficiency are essential to the performance of job-related tasks. The baccalaureate program also prepares students for entry into the Master of Accountancy and other advanced professional degree programs.

Learning Objectives

Specific learning objectives (i.e., learning outcomes, skills) emanate from the program objectives. Upon completion of the accounting major, students will demonstrate the following skills:

1. Understand and use the tools and techniques addressed in the business core. 2. Understand and apply generally accepted accounting principles to the measurement and

reporting of income and financial position for business enterprises. 3. Understand and apply the basic concepts of gross income, taxable income, allowable

deductions, tax credits, and asset basis as they relate to individual income taxation and property transactions taxation embodied in the United States income tax system.

4. Understand the principles and operation of well-controlled information systems in a variety of technological environments with added emphasis on the collection, processing, and reporting of accounting information.

5. Develop information and processes for managers to estimate the cost of the products and services the firm provides, to make routine and strategic resource allocation decisions, and to evaluate the performance of individuals and organizations.

6. Understand the independent financial statement auditing function and the professional responsibilities of external auditors and their public accounting firms.

7. Demonstrate critical thinking skills and analytical abilities, including the ability to analyze an unstructured case, identify the relevant issues, research the professional literature, and prepare a well-structured recommendation in writing.

8. Have the necessary communication skills to be able to create and deliver effective oral presentations, develop effective written presentations, and contribute effectively to group discussions.

- 33 -

Assessment

Table 11 presents the undergraduate program assessment plan/report template for the most recent assessment period, 2011-12 (note: assessment reports for 2008 to 2011 are included in Appendix 9). The table lists the eight learning outcomes, the level of expectation (i.e., target), assessment method, assessment results, and the use of results for program improvement. The “use of results for program improvement” represents the “closing the loop” component of assurance of learning.

TABLE 11

Undergraduate Program Assessment Plan/Report Template 2011-12

Program Mission Statement: The USF School of Accountancy provides quality undergraduate, master, and doctoral education delivered by caring faculty, creates and disseminates knowledge that advances the practice of accounting, and serves the community and profession. The SOA holds separate accreditation from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in recognition of the program’s high quality and continuous improvement efforts.

A Bachelor of Science/Arts in Business Administration with a major in accounting prepares graduates to enter the accounting profession in a variety of industry, not-for-profit, governmental, and public accounting positions in which professional competence, team building, oral and written communication skills, analytical ability and information technology proficiency are essential to the performance of job-related tasks. The baccalaureate program also prepares students for entry into the Master of Accountancy and other advanced professional degree programs.

Graduates who complete the BS/BA in Business Administration with a major in Accounting will be able to demonstrate the following:

A. Discipline Specific Knowledge and Skills

Outcome 1

The ability to understand and use the tools and techniques addressed in accounting core courses. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Level of Expectation

Students completing ACG 2021, Principles of Financial Accounting, and ACG 2071, Principles of Managerial Accounting, will average at least 60% correct responses on questions embedded in the final exam of each course.

Assessment Method

Program faculty has developed a robust quality improvement program structured around teams of at least two faculty members with each team responsible for a given course or set of courses within the major. Each team is responsible for developing and maintaining a bank of questions designed to assess learning for the outcome(s) addressed in that course. Each semester the team leader randomly selects 10 questions to be embedded in the final exam of each course. Team members as well as other SOA faculty review the question set and make suggestions for modifications. The embedded questions are scored separately and for reliability and validity the team analyzes the results. The School of Accountancy assessment coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to insure and monitor reliability/validity.

Assessment Results

ALC assessment occurred in Fall 2011 in all sections of ACG 2021 and 2071 on the Tampa campus. The questions were selected across course objectives to ensure assessment of all course objectives. ACG 2021 met this requirement on 8 of 10 questions asked. ACG 2071 met the requirement on 5 of the 10 questions tested.

- 34 -

Use of Results for Program Improvement

For both 2021 and 2071, the questions that did not receive an acceptable pass rate will be reviewed for validity. For all questions missed, the material primarily related to information that was covered much earlier in the semester, so reinforcement of the learning objectives tested was discussed and will be emphasized more fully in subsequent semesters. The course coordinator is also reassessing the test bank for ACG 2071, to ensure test questions are still representative of tools and techniques necessary in an accounting core course and that these concepts being emphasized and demonstrated in the classroom, since this test bank was created several years ago.

Outcome 2

The ability to understand and apply generally accepted accounting principles to the measurement and reporting of income and financial position for business enterprises. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Level of Expectation

Students completing the required courses, ACG 3103 and ACG 3113 (Intermediate Accounting I and II), will average at least 60% correct responses on questions designed to assess the ability to apply generally accepted accounting principles to the measurement and reporting of income and financial position for business enterprises.

Assessment Method

Program faculty has developed a robust quality improvement program structured around teams of at least two faculty members with each team responsible for a given course or set of courses within the major. Each team is responsible for developing and maintaining a bank of questions designed to assess learning for the outcome(s) addressed in that course. Each semester the team leader randomly selects 10 questions to be embedded in the final exam of each course. Team members as well as other SOA faculty review the question set and make suggestions for modifications. The embedded questions are scored separately and results are analyzed by the team for reliability and validity. The School of Accountancy assessment coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to insure and monitor reliability/validity.

Assessment Results

ALC assessment occurred in Fall 2011 in all sections of ACG 3103 and ACG 3113 on the Tampa campus. The questions were selected across course objectives to ensure assessment of all course objectives. Overall, the correct response rate for Intermediate I classes was 73%. The overall the correct response rate for Intermediate II classes was 74%.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Faculty was pleased with the overall results of the Intermediate I students. The few weaknesses will be addressed and emphasized in the future. The questions in which the Intermediate I students performed poorly were formulas for time value of money and discounts lost. Those concepts will be reviewed, demonstrated and emphasized more in the future. The questions in which the Intermediate II students performed poorly were cumulative learning concepts covered early in the semester, required significant knowledge from earlier courses, and/or were more analytical. Those cumulative and analytical concepts will be reviewed, demonstrated and emphasized more in the future.

Outcome 3 The ability to understand and apply the basic concepts of gross income, taxable income, allowable deductions, tax credits, and asset basis as they relate to individual income taxation embodied in the United States income tax system. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Levels of Expectation

Students completing TAX 4001, Concepts of Federal Income Taxation, a required course for the accounting major, will average at least 70% correct responses on questions designed to assess the ability to understand and apply the basic concepts of gross income, taxable income, allowable deductions, tax credits, and asset basis as they relate to individual income taxation embodied in the United States income tax system.

Assessment Method

ALC assessment occurred in Spring 2012 in all sections of TAX 4001 on the Tampa campus. The questions were selected across course objectives to ensure assessment of all

- 35 -

course objectives. Program faculty has developed a robust quality improvement program structured around teams of at least two faculty members with each team responsible for a given course or set of courses within the major. Each team is responsible for developing and maintaining a bank of questions designed to assess learning for the outcome(s) addressed in that course. Each semester the team leader randomly selects 10 questions to be embedded in the final exam of each course. Team members as well as other SOA faculty review the question set and make suggestions for modifications. The embedded questions are scored separately and results are analyzed by the team for reliability and validity. The School of Accountancy assessment coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to insure and monitor reliability/validity.

Assessment Results

The correct response rate was 65%, which was lower than the expectation level. However, performance was particularly low on one question in an area not emphasized by the instructor. Excluding that question performance was 69% which is close to the 70% expectation.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Student performance is approximately at the level of expectation. The concepts that the students did poorly on were (1) taxable versus non-taxable interest income and (2) deductibility of expenses for an illegal enterprise. We will work to improve student performance for outcome 3 by emphasizing these issues in the future.

Outcome 4 An understanding of the principles and operation of well-controlled information systems in a variety of technological environments with added emphasis on the collection, processing, and reporting of accounting information. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Levels of Expectation

Students completing ACG 3401, Accounting Information Systems, a required course for the accounting major, will average at least 70% correct responses on questions designed to assess understanding of the principles and operation of well-controlled information systems in a variety of technological environments with added emphasis on the collection, processing, and reporting of accounting information.

Assessment Method

Program faculty has developed a robust quality improvement program structured around teams of at least two faculty members with each team responsible for a given course or set of courses within the major. Each team is responsible for developing and maintaining a bank of questions designed to assess learning for the outcome(s) addressed in that course. Each semester the team leader randomly selects 10 questions to be embedded in the final exam of each course. Team members as well as other SOA faculty review the question set and make suggestions for modifications. The embedded questions are scored separately and results are analyzed by the team for reliability and validity. The School of Accountancy assessment coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to insure and monitor reliability/validity.

Assessment Results

ALC assessment occurred in Spring 2012 in both sections of ACG 3401 on the Tampa campus. The questions were selected across course objectives to ensure assessment of all course objectives. Students’ averages on the 10 questions were: 99, 98, 96, 78, 73, 100, 97, 97, 90, 56. Only one question was below 70%. This question related to learning objective (LO) 5, “to develop decision support skills and apply those skills using Excel.”

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Overall, students demonstrated adequate comprehension of accounting information systems. They showed particular strength in questions related to database structuring and modeling and controls and cycles. The one weakness that was noted relates to developing decision support skills as they pertain to Excel. The instructor will reinforce this concept in the fall, and this item will be included on the next round of ALC questions to re-assess comprehension of this concept.

- 36 -

Outcome 5 The ability to develop information and processes to enable managers to estimate the costs of products and services the firm provides, to make routine and strategic resource allocation decisions, and to evaluate the performance of individuals and organizations. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Levels of Expectation

Students completing ACG 3341, Cost Accounting and Control I, a required course for the accounting major, will average at least 70% correct responses on questions designed to assess the ability to develop information and processes to enable managers to estimate the costs of products and services the firm provides, to make routine and strategic resource allocation decisions, and to evaluate the performance of individuals and organizations.

Assessment Method

Program faculty has developed a robust quality improvement program structured around teams of at least two faculty members with each team responsible for a given course or set of courses within the major. Each team is responsible for developing and maintaining a bank of questions designed to assess learning for the outcome(s) addressed in that course. Each semester the team leader randomly selects 10 questions to be embedded in the final exam of each course. Team members as well as other SOA faculty review the question set and make suggestions for modifications. The embedded questions are scored separately and results are analyzed by the team for reliability and validity. The School of Accountancy assessment coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to insure and monitor reliability/validity.

Assessment Results

ALC assessment occurred in Fall 2011 in all sections of ACG 3341 on the Tampa campus. The questions were selected to ensure assessment of all course objectives. The overall correct response rate was 86%. The correct response rate for each of the five objectives was above 70% but was the lowest (76%) for objective 5.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Faculty were satisfied with the overall student performance but will work hard to improve the students’ performance specifically with respect to objective 5. Objective 5 relates to the role of relevant costs and revenues in decision-making. Faculty will attempt to do this by explaining in greater detail why individuals should focus solely on marginal costs and revenues and ignore sunk costs.

Outcome 6 An understanding of the independent financial statement auditing function and the professional responsibilities of external auditors and their public accounting firms. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Level of Expectation

Students completing ACG 4632, Auditing I, a required course for the accounting major, will average at least 70% correct responses on questions designed to assess understanding of the independent financial statement auditing function and the professional responsibilities of external auditors and their public accounting firms.

Assessment Method

Program faculty has developed a robust quality improvement program structured around teams of at least two faculty members with each team responsible for a given course or set of courses within the major. Each team is responsible for developing and maintaining a bank of questions designed to assess learning for the outcome(s) addressed in that course. Each Fall semester the team leader randomly selects 10 questions to be embedded in the final exam of each course. Team members as well as other SOA faculty review the question set and make suggestions for modifications. The embedded questions are scored separately and results are analyzed by the team for reliability and validity. The School of Accountancy assessment coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to insure and monitor reliability/validity.

Assessment Results

ALC assessment occurred in Fall 2011 in all sections of ACG 4632 on the Tampa campus. The questions were selected across course objectives to ensure assessment of all course objectives. The overall correct response rate was 78 percent.

Use of Results for Program

Ten multiple choice questions were incorporated into the final exam for all sections of Audit I (ACG 4632) on the Tampa campus of USF. The auditing faculty were pleased

- 37 -

Improvement with the overall correct response rate of 78 percent. While the overall results weresignificantly above the acceptable standard of 70 percent, an analysis of the results for individual questions revealed that student performance on four of the questions was below expectations (i.e., Question #2= 42 percent, Question #3= 59 percent, Question #4= 56 percent and Question #5= 64 percent). Question #2 relates to the content of the 10 Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), Questions #3 and 4 address auditor independence, and Question #5 focuses on the legal environment confronting independent auditors (in particular the question focused on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). All these topics were heavily emphasized by the instructor, and tested, during the first portion of the auditing course. The auditing faculty discussed the possible reasons for the poor performance on these topics and noted that all of this material was covered in the first 25% of the course and the course does not have a comprehensive final exam. The auditing faculty decided to address these student deficits in two ways. First, in the future they will explicitly emphasize to the students that a “memorize and forget” mentality is not going to serve them well in their future accounting careers. Secondly, they will attempt to reinforce student learning of key AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and legal concepts throughout the course by relating the material to other topical areas that are covered later in the course.

B. Critical Thinking Skills

Outcome 7 Critical thinking and analytical abilities, including the ability to analyze an unstructured case, identify the relevant issues, research the professional literature, and prepare a well-structured recommendation in writing. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Levels of Expectation

At least 75% of students completing ACG 3103, Intermediate Accounting I, will score at least 70% on the assigned case.

Methods of Assessment

Students in ACG 3103, Intermediate Accounting I, are required to write an individual case that addresses a key concept or theory related to the measurement and reporting of income and financial position for business enterprises. Instructors teaching the course use a common grading scale developed by program faculty to assess critical thinking and analytical abilities, including the ability to analyze unstructured cases, identify the relevant issues, research the professional literature, and prepare a well-structured recommendation in writing; cases are evaluated for critical thinking by the faculty teaching the course using a scale of 0 – 100.

Assessment Results

ALC assessment occurred in Fall 2011 in all sections of ACG 3103 on the Tampa campus. The case involved a discontinued operation situation where students must determine if the segment is a discontinued operation. The case was selected to ensure meeting of the assessment. The overall score was 80% (70% for critical thinking, 85% for clarity and organization, 91% for grammar and punctuation).

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Faculty was pleased with the results. However critical thinking, analytical skills and writing skills will continue to be emphasized through unstructured case analysis to improve the student performance in this area, particularly in the areas where the students scored lower than 80%.

C. Communication Skills

Outcome 8 The ability to write at the college level, including the ability to write with clarity usingstandard English grammar and punctuation. Students must also develop and support conclusions and recommendations. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 15 and 17, which addresses assurance of learning for undergraduate programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37, 39, and 40.

Measures/Levels of Expectation

On four writing assignments in ACG 3401, Accounting Information Systems, students will achieve an overall average of at least 80% for the technical requirements as well as for clarity and grammar.

Methods of Assessment

The ability to write in accordance with the technical requirements of the assignments and the ability to write with clarity, using standard grammar and punctuation, is assessed. The

- 38 -

Summary

Overall, undergraduate accounting major program objectives are being met, and in many cases, are exceeding expectations. In the instances where the results were below expectations, adjustments are made as part of the annual QIP process. For example, in the 2008-2009 assessment cycle, the assessment results for outcome 1 for the discipline specific knowledge and skills objective indicated that there was a quality difference between ACG 2071 (Principles of Managerial Accounting) taught by full-time faculty and that taught by adjunct instructors. As a result, the course coordinator established a process that provides for better coordination with adjuncts teaching ACG 2071 and implemented a new textbook which provides better and more robust resources for both students and faculty. These changes resulted in outcome 1 being generally met or exceeded in the succeeding years. All other accounting major program objectives and desired outcomes were generally met in the 2008-09 to 2011-12 ALC cycles. Where assessment results indicated weaknesses in certain areas, faculty committed to better emphasize and reinforce these areas in subsequent classes. Major curriculum changes stemming from deficiencies identified by assessment results included: revising ACG 3401 in Fall 2010 by adding the Systems Understanding Aid project to the curriculum in order to better emphasize business processes; and emphasizing and measuring written communication in ACG 3401 by requiring students to attend writing sessions held by the Business Communications Center (BizComm) in the College of Business and having their written assignments evaluated by the writing center. Individual ALC reports are available for each of the courses in the accounting major for the 2011-12 or earlier assessment cycles.

Master of Accountancy (MAcc) Degree

The Master of Accountancy (MAcc) degree is a 30-hour program comprised of 21 hours of accounting (four required courses + three electives) and nine hours of non-accounting electives. Courses are offered in all semesters, including the summer semester. While the program may be

method of assessment consists of a three step process where the student is required to 1) submit a draft paper where feedback is provided from both the instructor and the COB Writing Center, 2) meet one-on-one with a COB Writing Center staff member for a sixty-minute writing clinic where the COB staff member’s feedback is personalized to the deficiencies detected in the student’s writing, and 3) submit a revised draft incorporating the points discussed during the one-on-one meeting. The student is also required to submit his/her paper through an automated tool that detects plagiarism and must receive a percentage less than a predetermined threshold.

Assessment Results

Communication skills were rigorously taught and assessed in both sections of ACG 3401 during Spring 2012. This course is used because it is a required course in the accounting major and because students take it their second semester of their junior year. Students wrote four reports (one requiring the face-to-face meeting with COB writing staff and a revision) on events affecting the accounting profession during the semester. Each paper was returned with written comments and suggestions for improvement in writing. This iterative model provided students with at least five sets of comments on their writing. Students were expected to score at least 80% on the total of the three components. The average score earned was an 89%. Further, there was significant writing improvement between Step 1 and Step 3. The average score on Step 1 was 85.9%, which increased to 91.3% by the end of Step 3.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

The addition of the writing component to ACG 3401 is an excellent addition. Student evaluation comments reveal that students are beginning to grasp and understand the importance of improving their writing skills. We will continue to work with BizComm to increase opportunities for students to get tutoring where needed for individuals with particularly weak writing skills.

- 39 -

completed in one year, many MAcc students do a spring internship for a local accounting firm. Thus, the full-time student completes the MAcc program, on average, within 12-18 months.

Program Objectives

The goal of the Master of Accountancy (MAcc) Program is to provide candidates with greater breadth and depth of knowledge in accountancy than is possible in the baccalaureate program. Emphasizing theoretical knowledge, analytical skills, information technology proficiency and research methodology in solving business problems, the MAcc program is designed to meet the needs of students seeking employment in private corporations, governmental and non-profit organizations, and public accounting firms. The MAcc program builds upon an undergraduate accounting degree, by further developing students’ technical accounting skills, emphasizing ethical awareness, oral and written communication skills, team building and integrative skills necessary to advance to positions of increasing responsibility within their chosen career path. The MAcc program may also be structured to satisfy the requirements to sit for the Uniform CPA Examination in Florida.

Learning Objectives

Specific learning objectives (i.e., learning outcomes, skills) emanate from the program objectives. Upon completion of the Master of Accountancy (MAcc) program, students will demonstrate:

1. The ability to integrate across functional accounting areas, exhibiting critical thinking, and technical accounting knowledge;

2. Ethical awareness; 3. Team building and oral communication skills; 4. Written communication skills.

Assessment

Each of the stated learning objectives is assessed in one of the two required core courses for the MAcc curriculum: ACG 6875, Financial Reporting and Professional Issues, and ACG 6932 Integrative Accounting Seminar. Table 12 presents the Master of Accountancy program assessment plan/report template for the most recent assessment period, 2011-12 (note: assessment reports for 2008 to 2011 are included in Appendix 9). The table lists the four learning outcomes, the level of expectation (i.e., target), assessment method, assessment results, and the use of results for program improvement. The “use of results for program improvement” represents the “closing the loop” component of assurance of learning.

- 40 -

TABLE 12 Master of Accountancy Program Assessment Plan/Report Template

2011-12

Program Mission Statement: The USF School of Accountancy (SOA) provides quality undergraduate, Master, and doctoral education delivered by caring faculty, creates and disseminates knowledge that advances the practice of accounting, and serves the community and profession. The SOA holds separate accreditation from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in recognition of the program’s high quality and continuous improvement efforts. Graduates of this program will be able to demonstrate the following:

Outcome 1

Upon completion of the Master of Accountancy (MAcc), the student will demonstrate a comprehensive mastery of technical accounting knowledge and the ability to integrate across functional accounting areas. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 19 and 20 as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37 and 42.

Levels of Expectation

It is expected that the class will show an average improvement of 10% between the midterm and final project assessment.

Methods of Assessment

Technical accounting knowledge and the ability to integrate across functional accounting areas are assessed at two points during ACG 6932 using test questions and/or case questions. Test questions and/or case questions are developed by the faculty member teaching the course with approval from another program faculty member, or an outside source. The teaching faculty member will develop a grading rubric for the questions to be administered and the rubric will be approved by another program faculty member. Student responses are read by the faculty member teaching the course. Responses are scored on a scale of 0-100 using the approved rubric.

Assessment Results

At midterm the class scored an average of 82.5% on the case question requiring integration of the functional areas of accounting. The same question applied to a different case resulted in an average class score of 93.1% at the end of the course. The increase in score was 10.6%, which meets the expectation.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

This year the instructor continued emphasis on the integration of functional areas. The emphasis was reinforced in the group project where each week functional areas of accounting were discussed. Due to excellent results, no change will be made to the expectation for the coming year.

- 41 -

Outcome 2

Upon completion of the MAcc program, students will demonstrate ethical awareness including the ability to identify an ethical issue/dilemma, the ability to discuss theories and ethical canons, the ability to discuss alternative courses of action, and the ability to recommend an appropriate course of action based on theories and the accountants’ code of professional ethics. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 19 and 20 as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37 and 42.

Levels of Expectation

At least 90% of students will score at least 80% on the ethics question.

Methods of Assessment

Ethical awareness is assessed via assigned readings and case discussion in ACG 6875, a course required of all students in the program. Students participate in a class discussion of ethics readings and an ethics case drawn from Issues in Accounting Education. Students are subsequently evaluated based on an externally validated case tested on a midterm exam.

Assessment Results

In the Fall 2011 ACG 6875 class, 90% of the students scored 80% or better on the ethics question on the mid-semester exam, meeting the expectation level.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

The assessment method being used appears to be accomplishing the intended objective. The faculty will continue to further ethical awareness and application using tested cases on exams.

Outcome 3

Upon completion of the MAcc program, students will demonstrate effective oral communication skills. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 19 and 20 as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37 and 42.

Levels of Expectation

At least 90% of students will be rated as excellent or acceptable.

Methods of Assessment

Oral communication skills are assessed in the program capstone course, ACG 6932. Students complete group assignments for which each student is required to participate in an oral presentation. Communication skills are evaluated by the professor teaching the course, outside observers, and peers on a 3-point scale (Excellent-Acceptable-Poor). The School of Accountancy assessment coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to measure and monitor inter-rater reliability.

Assessment Results

All students in the Fall 2011 Integrative Accounting Seminar scored acceptable or excellent on the oral presentation. Students were asked, prior to class to familiarize themselves with the “Lehman Report” prepared by Anton Valukas as well as presentations on the economics of securitizations and Lehman and Repo 105 transactions. During the class, students were asked to respond to questions prepared by Dr. Tony Sondhi. Student responses were evaluated based on their ability to communicate effectively their responses as well as their critical analysis of the difficult concepts. Evaluations were made by Lisa Gaynor (instructor) and Tony Sondhi (A.C. Sondhi & Associates, LLC).

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Emphasis on effective communication skills will continue and no change will be made to the expectation for the coming year.

- 42 -

Summary

The assessment results indicate that program objectives are being met in the Master of Accountancy program. Current assessment methods will be continued going forward. Individual ALC reports are available for each of the courses in the MAcc program. The 2008 to 2011 assessment results also indicate that program objectives are generally being met. Where assessment results indicated weaknesses in certain areas, faculty committed to better emphasize and reinforce these areas in subsequent classes. In addition, the ACG 6875 curriculum was revised in fall 2009 due to low student performance on outcome 5 (demonstrating knowledge of IT controls and IT governance) in the 2008 assessment. The revision included devoting more class time to this knowledge area and discussing a detailed problem in class. This change contributed to students performing significantly better on this measure in the 2009-2010 assessment. The outcomes measured in the MAcc program were revised in 2010 with faculty deciding to eliminate the measurement of outcome 5, since the Advanced Accounting Information Systems course was no longer a required course in the MAcc program. Individual ALC reports are available for earlier assessment cycles for courses in the MAcc program.

Doctoral Program

The College of Business began offering a doctoral program with a concentration in Accounting in 1989. The first SOA PhD graduate was in 1992, and the program has granted 28 doctorates since then. We normally admit two students into the program each academic year.

Program Objectives

Specific learning objectives (i.e., learning outcomes, skills) emanate from the program objectives. Upon completion of the PhD program students will have:

1. Acquired in-depth knowledge of their area of specialization.

Outcome 4

Upon completion of the MAcc program, students will demonstrate effective written communication skills. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards 19 and 20 as well as with accounting accreditation standards 37 and 42.

Levels of Expectation

At least 90% of students will be rated as excellent or acceptable.

Methods of Assessment

Written communication skills are assessed in the ACG 6875 Financial Reporting and Professional Issues course. One question from the midterm exam in Fall 2011 semester will be submitted to the Business Assessment Center (BAC) for assessment.

Assessment Results

All students in ACG 6875 scored acceptable or higher on the question submitted to the Business Assessment Center for assessment. This was the second time the BAC was used for the written evaluation.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

The BAC evaluation of students was consistently applied and returned to the students in time to improve performance on the final. Generally it was found students in ACG 6875 showed improvement in their writing in the final exam in the ACG 6875 class, relative to the mid-semester exam. Most students thought the BAC evaluations were useful.

- 43 -

2. Developed their research skills to enable them to make significant contributions to the discipline’s literature.

3. Developed their teaching skills appropriate for higher education. 4. Authored a dissertation showing significant ability to make independent intellectual

contributions to a specific field of knowledge.

Assessment

Table 13 relates available assessment of learning data to the first three learning objectives for the PhD program for the most recent assessment period, 2011-12 (note: assessment reports for 2008 to 2011 are included in Appendix 9). The “use of results for program improvements” section represents “closing the loop” for the assessment of the PhD program objectives.

TABLE 13

PhD Program Assessment 2011-12

Program Mission Statement: The USF School of Accountancy (SOA) provides quality undergraduate, master, and doctoral education delivered by caring faculty, creates and disseminates knowledge that advances the practice of accounting, and serves the community and profession. The SOA holds separate accreditation from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in recognition of the program’s high quality and continuous improvement efforts. The PhD program with a concentration in Accounting prepares graduates for academic positions at colleges and universities at which research is a key element of a successful career. The program creates an environment for intellectual growth as students work closely with faculty in seminars, research projects, and other assignments designed to develop the skills necessary to engage in productive research on the complex issues that characterize the global financial environment. The program also emphasizes the development of effective teaching and platform skills via coursework, mentoring, and supervised classroom experiences. Graduates of this program will be able to demonstrate the following: Outcome

Outcome 1

Upon completion of the PhD program students will demonstrate in-depth knowledge of their area of specialization. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standard 21, which addresses assurance of learning for doctoral programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 43 and 44.

Levels of Expectation

The expectation is that all students will be competent in their area of specialization. On the comprehensive exam a score of two (2.0) is the minimum passing score for any individual question; however, we expect the students’ overall score to be above a minimal level. As such, an average score of 2.5 will be considered an automatic passing grade (assuming the student has passed all individual questions). A scoring rubric will be employed. The expectation is that all students will pass the oral exam.

- 44 -

Methods of Assessment

The knowledge associated with the student’s area of specialization is measured via comprehensive exams that are developed by the concerned seminar professors and graded by two faculty members. The comprehensive exam is divided into two parts: written and oral. For the written exam each PhD student receives comprehensive exam questions in accountancy and the student’s specialty area of study. Each exam question is scored by two professors on a scale of 0-4 for which 0 = failure/unacceptable and 4 = outstanding. If there is a variation of more than 2 points between raters, a third faculty member will read the question and the three faculty will develop a consensus rating. The oral examination is conducted by at least two members of the School of Accountancy (SOA) doctoral program committee and may include additional members who represent either the student’s major area of study, an area on which the student performed poorly on the written comprehensive examination, or both. The oral segment of the comprehensive exam is pass/fail. After completion of the oral segment, faculty will discuss the student’s performance and develop a consensus rating. As part of its ongoing quality improvement process, the SOA will work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment to measure and monitor inter-rater reliability.

Assessment Results

Three PhD students were eligible to sit for comprehensive exams in 2011-2012. Jason Rasso and Maia Farkas sat and passed comprehensive exams in Fall of 2011, and Sukari Farrington sat and passed comprehensive exams in Spring of 2012.

Use of Results for Program Improvemen

The Committee has instituted a new policy for the oral component of the comprehensive exam. The oral segment of the comprehensive exam will now be assigned a score on a scale of 0-4 for which 0 = failure/unacceptable and 4 = outstanding by at least two members of the PhD committee. This scoring method will be used beginning in Fall 2012.

Outcome

Outcome 2

Upon completion of the PhD program students will demonstrate research skills that will enable them to make significant contributions to the discipline’s literature. This outcome aligns with AACSB Standard 21, which addresses assurance of learning for doctoral programs in business, as well as with accounting accreditation standards 43 and 44.

Levels of Expectation

The expectation is that all students will be judged to be competent in research by achieving a ‘pass’ on the first year paper and dissertation defense and a minimum of 2.5 overall score on the comprehensive examination.

Methods of Assessment

Research and statistics skills/competencies are measured at three points in the program: the student’s first year research paper, comprehensive exams and the dissertation defense; the student’s first year research paper and the dissertation defense measure the student’s ability to conduct original, independent research. First Year Paper—Each student is required to complete a research study begun in the Accounting Information Systems Seminar, the Experimental Design Seminar, or other seminar and to write a working paper for the study during the student’s first summer in the PhD program. The seminar professor reads the paper and makes suggestions for improvement. Once assessed acceptable by the seminar professor, the paper is presented at a SOA workshop during the fall semester of the student’s second year; students are also encouraged to submit the paper to an academic conference. The members of the SOA PhD committee assess the first year paper on a pass/fail basis. Second Year Paper—In 2011 the committee instituted a requirement for a second year paper. The expectation is that the second year paper would show significant progress over the first year paper, commensurate with the student’s development in the PhD program. Comprehensive Exam—As described in outcome 1, above, the comprehensive exam is divided into two parts, written and oral. For the written exam each PhD student receives comprehensive exam questions in accountancy and the student’s specialty area of study. Each exam question is

- 45 -

graded by two professors on a scale of 0-4 for which 0 = failure/unacceptable and 4 = outstanding. If there is a variation of more than 2 points between raters, a third faculty member will read the question and the three faculty members will develop a consensus rating. Dissertation Defense—Each PhD student has a dissertation committee composed of at least one chair (SOA faculty member) and three other members (two SOA faculty members and one outside member). Throughout the dissertation process the committee assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the research and provides feedback to the student on areas needing improvement. The dissertation defense is graded on a pass/fail basis. At the completion of the defense, faculty will discuss the student’s performance and develop a consensus rating of pass or fail.

Assessment Results

First year paper— Three PhD students completed first year papers in 2011-2012 and presented them at SOA research workshops at which they received additional comments on how to improve the paper. The papers were presented on 4/21/11, 9/23/11 and 11/4/11. All three papers received a score of ‘pass’ by the doctoral program committee. Second year paper: since the second year paper requirement did not apply until Fall 2012, there were no second year paper presentations in 2011-2012. Dissertation defense— Two students successfully defended their dissertations in 2011-2012. Each defense was chaired by a SOA research professor. Robert Marley defended on 06/27/2011 and Linda Ragland defended on 9/16/2011. Comprehensive exams— Three PhD students were eligible to sit for comprehensive exams in 2011-2012. Jason Rasso and Maia Farkas sat and passed comprehensive exams in Fall of 2011, and Sukari Farrington sat and passed comprehensive exams in Spring of 2012.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Given that current PhD students are achieving expectations, we will continue using the current methods of assessment for this outcome.

Outcome

Outcome 3 Students will demonstrate teaching skills appropriate for higher education. This outcome aligns with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standard 21, which addresses assurance of learning for doctoral programs, as well as accounting accreditation standard 45.

Levels of Expectation

The expectation is that all students will be judged competent in teaching: Students must present evidence of completion of required CTE classes as defined by the college’s Doctoral Programs Committee. Achievement of the objectives of the SOA teaching seminar is demonstrated by completion and submission of required forms and other materials. In line with expectations of SOA faculty, students are expected to receive a score of 5 or better on the 7 point teaching evaluation form.

Methods of Assessment

Doctoral students demonstrate teaching skills appropriate to higher education via (1) successful completion of USF’s Center for Teaching Excellence classes as certified by the center and (2) completing a one-credit teaching seminar developed by the School of Accountancy and (3) evaluation of teaching skills by SOA faculty. As part of the seminar, the student team-teaches with a professor and is evaluated by the professor. Further evaluation is conducted by faculty observing the doctoral student in the classes the doctoral student is required to teach during his/her tenure at USF. The student’s competence in teaching is assessed by faculty team teachers and an observer using a modified version of the approved university teacher evaluation form.

Assessment Results

In 2011 no students completed the SOA teaching seminar. Two students are currently enrolled in the teaching seminar and will complete the requirements at the end of the Spring semester of 2012.

- 46 -

Summary

Overall, the assessment results indicate that program objectives are being met in the SOA doctoral program. Current assessments methods will be continued. In the 2008-2009 assessment cycle, the PhD committee determined that Outcome 4 was very similar to Outcome 2 and as a result Outcome 4 was deleted. Objectives in the PhD program are being met with students succeeding on their comprehensive exams, first year paper, and dissertation defense. Three students earned the PhD degree in 2008, two in 2009, one in 2010, and two in 2011. Individual ALC reports are available for earlier assessment cycles of the PhD program.

The ultimate measure of success of a doctoral program is, of course, the placement of PhD students. Table 14 represents a listing of all SOA PhD graduates, their initial placement, and their current status, from the inception of the doctoral program to present.

TABLE 14 USF School of Accountancy

Placement of SOA PhD Students

Name Year Initial Placement Now

Joe Joseph 1992 University of Tampa

Karen Lanese 1993 University of Tennessee-Chattanooga

Out of Academia

Laurel Cobb 1993 St. Leo University Retired

Kathy Yeaton 1994 University of Connecticut (Part-time)

Som Bhattacharya 1994 University of Texas - El Paso Florida Atlantic University

Ron Marden 1995 Appalachian State University

Linda Nelsestuen 1996 Elmhurst College

Michael Harkness 1997 University of Michigan-Dearborn

William Stout 1997 University of Louisville

Christie Comunale 1998 Long Island University - CW. Post

Henry Efebera 1999 University of Akron Deceased

Tanya Benford 2000 Texas A&M University Florida Gulf Coast University

Four students were observed while they taught for a total of four observations in 2011-2012; all students received a an average of over 5.0 on the grading rubric, with only one student receiving less than an average of 6.0 on the grading rubric.

Use of Results for Program Improvement

Since objectives are being achieved with outcome 3, other program improvements are not being considered at this time. (We believe our limited resources are better spent on outcomes 1 and 2.)

- 47 -

Maywa Yei 2000 Private Industry Private Industry

James Kohlmeyer 2001 Millsaps College East Carolina

David Hayes 2002 Louisiana State University James Madison University

Robert Pinsker 2002 Old Dominion University Florida Atlantic University

EL-Hussein El-Masry

2003 California State University - Los Angeles

Antoinette Lynch 2004 Miami University (Ohio) Florida Atlantic University

Eileen Taylor 2006 North Carolina State University

Robert Slater 2007 Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi

University of North Florida

Anita Reed 2008 University of North Texas Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi

Johan Perols 2008 University of San Diego

John Chan 2008 Cal State-East Bay

Christopher Jones 2009 Western Illinois University University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh

Ann Dzuranin 2009 Northern Illinois University

Norma Montague 2010 Wake Forest University

Robert Marley 2011 Georgia Southern University

Linda Ragland 2011 Georgia State - Visiting Only

As indicated in the situational analysis, we have had limited success in placing PhD graduates at doctoral granting institutions or at peer institutions. A number of graduates have been placed at respected institutions, including nationally known universities (e.g., Wake Forest) and institutions with strong accounting programs (e.g., Northern Illinois). As one measure of the quality of our program, graduates have had their research published in top journals (e.g., The Accounting Review, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Journal of Information Systems, Behavioral Research in Accounting). It is hoped that recently instituted program elements, such as the first year and second year paper requirement, will result in our graduates coming to market with a publication or papers receiving “revise and resubmit” outcomes at quality journals. Combined with a high quality dissertation, we hope that having a publication or at least several working papers on their curriculum vitae will facilitate our PhD graduates being placed at respected doctoral granting institutions.

- 48 -

6. Summary and Conclusion

The School of Accountancy at the University of South Florida has a high-quality undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral program. Our faculty members are dedicated to student success and most tenure-track faculty are active researchers having made recent contributions to knowledge. We are widely recognized as having the best Beta Alpha Psi chapter in the world. In the BYU Accounting Research Rankings, we are ranked third in the accounting information systems area. Our faculty members have published in five of the top seven academic accounting journals in the last five years. The CPA exam pass rate of our graduates is in the top 15 percent of large programs nationally. Our graduates continue to be sought after by international and regional public accounting firms, as well as by employers in industry and not-for-profit institutions.

The School of Accountancy fares well relative to the AACSB criteria for maintenance of accreditation. Our faculty members have collectively produced 40 peer-reviewed journal articles over the five year accreditation period, resulting in 70 percent of instructors being academically qualified. Including adjunct and visiting faculty, 100 percent of instruction is delivered by faculty who are either academically or professionally qualified. Regarding faculty sufficiency, excluding business law our participating to supporting ratio is 73 percent, which is close to the College of Business goal of 75 percent and well above the AACSB benchmark of 60 percent. Regarding assurance of learning, the School of Accountancy has a robust quality improvement process in place, conducted annually, to measure learning outcomes, assess performance relative to benchmarks, and to make adjustments where necessary to close the loop. Our strategic planning process has also been systematized and is well-aligned with the college’s and university’s mission. Overall, we believe that we have a vibrant and high-quality accounting program that all stakeholders can be proud of.

As we move forward with a new Dean at the helm of the College of Business, the School of Accountancy is committed to continuous improvement. We have recently engaged in a serious discussion of the Pathways Commission Report and are seeking ways to further strengthen the bidirectional links between research and teaching, teaching and practice, and research and practice. The School of Accountancy will continue to play a pivotal role in fulfilling the mission of the College of Business to transform minds and transform business.

- 49 -

APPENDICES

1. Advisory Council Members

2. Accounting Circle Members

3. Master Strategic Plan for 2011-12

4. Program Checklists for Master of Accountancy Concentrations

5. AACSB Tables 31-1 (COB Table 2-1), 10-1, 10-2, and 9-1

6. SOA Policy Manual

7. New Faculty Orientation Script

8. SOA Quality Improvement Process

9. Prior Years’ Assessment Reports