PhDCPA

Are you in accounting? If so, it's really normal to struggle with the quant coursework, and that stuff need not have much to do with the research you actually conduct once you finish your required classes. Is there even one paper that has interested you? You don't have to like everything - you just need to find your niche. What have your classmates said? I don't think it's uncommon to have thoughts of quitting, especially in the first semester/year. Can they talk you off the ledge? I wouldn't talk to the PhD program director about this, because assuming you don't quit, you may be "tainted" in his/her eyes. In a nutshell, first year sucks. It gets a lot better (this coming from someone who was also quite unhappy for the first few months, but is now loving life after quals).

Another 3rd year student (who is thankfully done with econ coursework) here. I concur with the other posters. In order of importance, I'd estimate: 1. Calc 1 2. Linear Algebra 3. Econometrics 4. Calc 2 5. Intermediate Micro I wouldn't bother with anything beyond that unless you just love math. The bottom line is that most accounting PhD students get killed in the econ coursework, but you learn what you can, you pass, and you move on with your life.

There are literally zero PhDs in accounting from AACSB schools teaching community college, as rsaylors implies. I know of many four year schools in very desirable locations that cannot hire accounting PhDs simply because there are not enough. I know of a small liberal arts school in the West that conducted a search for a new accounting faculty and stipulated that a PhD was required... and received zero applicants, then had to reopen the search the next year to MBA+CPA. The situation is certainly not as dire as rsaylors says. That said, you'll be in for a shock if you do a PhD program because you want to teach. I've been on both ends - clinical faculty and now a PhD student - and the PhD is only worth it if you want to research. You can make as much money as a good clinical faculty vs. a bad research professor, and have time for consulting and such on the side.

I hear ya - I suffered through PhD metrics last year. The Wooldridge undergrad book is great and covers most everything you need to know in order to understand most empirical accounting research.

Semester #3 here as well - one to go before the easy part! Hah!

I'll sort of echo the advice that your time is better spent on things other than working. I DO think that a year or two of solid (Big 4 or name brand firm) work experience will make you a more attractive applicant, both for the PhD and for academic jobs later. But more than that isn't really helpful. The MAcc will look good too, and if you are eyeing PhD admissions later you can use your electives strategically. Taking graduate level microeconomics and econometrics would really put your application over the top -- very few applicants have both a solid accouning background and a decent quant preparation. Here's what I would do: 1. If you have any electives left next semester, take an undergrad "math for economists" type class if your school has one. I'm assuming you've taken calculus and statistics already. There is no such thing as too much math. 2. Use your MAcc electives strategically as described above. 3. Work for 1 year, then apply. Work your 2nd year and get your CPA while you await admissions decisions. Good luck!

My opinion is that you need to do both -- more math and a masters -- to get into a finance program. You need at least a year of calc, mathematical statistics and probability theory, econometrics, and linear algebra. That's the absolutely bare minimum to understand what's going on in your PhD econ and finance classes. Many schools also have a "math for economists" class that would be hepful. You also need a masters (and hopefully a 700+ GMAT) to make up for the GPA. A master's in finance is less helpful than a master's in econ, math, or statistics, but if you get a master's in finance and use your electives wisely it could still end up okay. So my opinion is that you're looking at an additional year of undergrad (maybe not full time) plus a masters. The good news is that if you want to go to a teaching school, you can pretty much get your PhD at any accredited program and be okay, so if you do the work and cast a wide net you'll likely end up somewhere.

Not to mention the fact that accounting PhDs tend to make a lot more than econ PhDs...! I think your profile is great and your math background is at least average. I wouldn't worry about the grade in real analysis since most accounting PhDs have never even taken it! Linear algebra and micro theory are far more important so just do well in those. I would be very surprised if you didn't get into at least one of the schools you list, but with admit percentages around 5% it can't hurt to apply to more. Every school has financial/archival researchers so apply anywhere you think you might be a good fit.

I'd be extremely surprised if you didn't get into one of those 17, but as the others have said, more applications can't hurt as long as the quality doesn't suffer. So if you've quit your job and have time to devote to writing essays, I'd say apply to as many as you can. With an interest in archival financial you can go anywhere because every school has faculty in that area.

Jeri Seidman (at Texas-Austin) went to MIT and is tax. I think that was pre-Hanlon though. Oregon is definitely becoming a strong tax school.

I just finished my 1st year in accounting, so I took all the same classes as the finance guys. By far, you should spend the most time on math. The Schaum's guide is great and covers most of what you need to know. I spent a few hundred $ on prep books before I started, but that $15 was easily the best I spent. Chaing is OK but I think the Schaum's guide is sufficient for prep purposes. I wouldn't read journal articles. A better idea would be to look for lit reviews to give you broad exposure to the main issues. A good example is John Graham's 2006 survey on taxes and corporate finance. Learning SAS is also a good idea -- try the Little SAS book. Also see if you can get a WRDS account through your school so that you can start to fool around/get familiar with CRSP and Compustat. Finally, I'd advise acquiring some familiarity with econometrics -- it will make reading papers much easier. The Schaum's guide for metrics isn't great. I'd recommend the first few chapters of the Wooldrige intro econometrics textbook, which is an easy read and covers all the main stuff you need to know to interpret most research. I think prepping is a fine idea, but don't go overboard and keep enjoying yourself as much as you can before school starts.

The only way I would decline the acceptance you do have is: 1. The other school is a big name private school that would never have funding issues (e.g., Wharton). 2. The other school is far superior to the current school. 3. The other school issues you a written, signed, offer letter for Fall 2011. Not an email. If they can't give you a straight answer, then be happy with what you have! Who knows what will happen next year?

Possible, 4 quarter courses = 3 semester courses. We're in the same boat!

RA workload varies widely based on the university and the specific professor. We're expected to do 10 hours per week, but often receive less (though sometimes more as well). A typical week for me is: 10 hours in class 5-15 hours of RA work 5-10 hours of independent reading (in my specific research area) 10-15 hours of reading and problem sets for class Note that most of what you REALLY need to know, you learn as an RA and through self study. Classes are fine, but that's not where you learn the nuts and bolts of research and think of new research questions. Rather, you focus on theory and, mostly, the classic papers in your discipline. Okay, back to studying for finals now.

I'm definitely not an expert on conducting audit research, but my understanding is that a lot of it is either experimental or field studies. So in that regard, data availability is a concern; you can't just log onto WRDS and download all your data in a matter of seconds like you can in financial and (some) tax and managerial. On the other hand, that also means that the barrier to entry is higher, and fewer audit researchers = more research questions left for you. As far as placement, the reason you don't see audit researchers at the elite schools (Chicago, Wharton, Stanford, etc.) is that those places don't have accounting programs (they only have a few MBA accounting electives, typically focusing on financial), and thus don't teach audit. However, there is definitely a shortage of audit profs at the schools that DO teach accounting (in the traditional sense of preparing students for the CPA exam etc.). So I imagine that schools like the ones you mentioned would be just as happy, if not more so, to hire a good audit researcher vs. yet another financial researcher. Finally, it's important to pick a research area that interests you. You'll be more successful in a field that you enjoy. So if audit is what does it for you, I'd stick with audit. I could be totally wrong here, but that's my two cents.