I think in general PhD programs do place value on being a CPA and work experience in general. However, I don’t think they are very concerned with individual scores on the CPA exam (I don’t remember seeing any question addressing CPA exam scores on any of my PhD applications). The exam score they do care about is the GMAT. As one of my professors put it, the GMAT is the lens through which everything else on the application is evaluated.

The AAA (referred to in an earlier comment I made) has a compilation of surveys that may prove useful to you. It’s a little bit dated (2007), but provides some information on what various schools expect from applicants. Some schools place a lot of value on work experience while others say it is “Not required, but considered.” If you feel it is one of your strong points, talk it up in your letter of intent. In particular, relate how and why your experience as an auditor has made you decide to do a PhD and how it will help in your research.

That’s my perspective as someone who just finished the application process. Hopefully someone on the other end of the process can address your questions from that perspective as well.

I don’t want to scare anyone away. You just have to be determined and you have to love it. If you love it and you are a hard-worker, you should be able to overcome any deficit in your background.

Absolutely. By the end of a PhD program, I think most accounting students will have had the equivalent of 3 semesters of calculus (multivariate calculus) and a semester of linear algebra, often all packaged in the form of a PhD course in “math for economists”).

This math background is used to help the student through a semester or two of calc-based economics, two semesters of calc-based basic statistics, and then some additional statistics courses that will depend on your interests (experimental design, econometrics, time series).

You don’t need to have learned this math before you get to the program, but you do need to demonstrate that you can learn it. If you did well in a year of calculus, that is a good sign.

Those who have the opportunity might consider taking a course in calculus or calc-based stats or econ before they apply.

But rarely is all else equal. People who choose to go directly into graduate school often have a real interest in research, and a pretty solid background in math (otherwise they probably would have sought a traditional job out of undergrad).

Ultimately, there are many ways to be successful in academia, and many ways to get into a PhD program. If there were a lot of Wall Street managing directors who kept up with calculus and econometrics, and were willing to earn $20K/year for 5 years while studying research techniques that apply to extremely narrow issues, they would be hard to compete against. But there are probably only a few of those every year, leaving plenty of spots for everyone else.

That being said, it is intimidating to know that I’m competing for slots with people who have several years of experience and may even come with funding (e.g. ADS scholars).

I’m curious about others’ thoughts on the role of experience prior to pursuing a Ph.D. I realize most of these posts have been directed towards the positioning of applicants as opposed to qualifications, yet I always find this an interesting conversation given it would appear (prior to this year) the influx of applicants in recent years to my knowledge are applying without ever working outside of academia.

I think our top issues are: Good quant and equally good verbal on the GMAT. OFten they are so far apart (with verbal too low). We are looking at 45 for minimum verbal and 50 quant. THis field is all about writing and communicating, in my opinion.

Good knowledge of what you are getting into.

These are not the only things, of course.

Check back on the website periodically. We are working on adding video and several other useful tools. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Also, we will integrate it with the research paper that Jeremy mentioned to provide (hopefully) a good set of information to potential students on which program best fits them.

1. Get into the research. Read a couple issues of TAR, JAR, JAE, CAR, etc. Read the abstracts of everything. If a paper sounds interesting, keep reading. Keep track of the papers you thought were interesting and try to figure out what topical areas (e.g. financial, audit, tax, managerial, systems) you are interested in, and what methodology (e.g. archival, experimental, analytical) you enjoy the most.

2. After you choose what research type you want to do, make a list of schools that match. Take a look at this paper to help in that process. It ranks schools according to publications by each topic and methodology. The authors are currently working on an interactive website that will make searching even easier. The AAA put together some information that may help as well. It’s a couple of years old, but it certainly helped me. It gives average GMATs, graduation rates, placement, and other useful information about each school.

3. Once you have a list of schools you are interested in, dive in. Find out about the professors. I signed up for RSS feeds from SSRN for prominent professors at several of my top schools. Research what the program entails: expectations, location, admission criteria, deadlines, coursework, etc. Talk to people from those schools. I had the opportunity to attend a research symposium as I began my application process. I made a point to attend presentations by people affiliated with schools I was interested in. Try to get a feel for the culture. Is it an on-your-own type school or a work-together type school? Which type of person are you? Talk to faculty at your school and ask their opinions.

4. Even after all is said and done, keep the list of schools that you originally made. Realize that you may be going through the same process in 5 years as you try to find your first job.

That’s my two cents anyway.