How To Rank A School By Tdn

Transcription

1 Rev Quant Finan Acc (2007) 29: DOI /s ORIGINAL PAPER Accounting Ph.D. program graduates: affiliation performance and publication performance Lawrence D. Brown Æ Indrarini Laksmana Published online: 26 September 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract We examine the affiliation performance and publication performance of accounting Ph.D. graduates. We define affiliation performance as whether or not an individual is employed at a school with an accounting program ranked by Trieschmann et al. (Academy of Management Journal 43: , 2000). We define publication performance in two ways, whether or not the Ph.D. graduate published in at least one of: (1) three premier accounting, and (2) a broader set of eight accounting. We examine the influence of the institutional status (private versus public) of the graduating institution on both affiliation performance and publication performance. We examine the institutional status both unconditionally and conditionally on four article types published in three premier : (1) articles from Ph.D. dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with degree-school faculty, (3) co-authored articles with degree-school Ph.D. students, and (4) co-authored articles with affiliated faculty. We show that accounting graduates of private schools are more likely to be affiliated with higher ranked schools, but they are not more likely to publish in the premier or the broader set of eight. Keywords Ph.D. programs Publication performance Affiliation performance JEL Classification M40 L. D. Brown (&) Robinson College of Business, School of Accountancy, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4050, 35 Broad Street, 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA , USA ldb@gsu.edu I. Laksmana College of Business Administration, Department of Accounting, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH , USA ilaksman@kent.edu Electronic copy available at:

2 286 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana 1 Introduction We examine affiliation performance and publication performance of accounting Ph.D. graduates during the 7-year period, We focus on affiliations and publications 6 years after graduation as it is the time horizon for most tenure decisions. Consistent with Fogarty and Ruhl (1997) and Trieschmann et al. (2000) [TDNN], we consider publications in the three premier accounting, The Accounting Review (TAR), Journal of Accounting Research (JAR), and Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE). We also extend their analyses by considering publications in a broader set of eight accounting : the three premier accounting plus Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR), Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance (JAAF), Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (JAPP), Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (AJPT), and Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting (RQFA). In the spirit of TDNN, who examined the effect of institutional status (private versus public) on faculty publication, we examine the effect of institutional status on the affiliation and publication performance of accounting Ph.D. graduates. We examine the influence of institutional status on publication success unconditionally on article type, and for the three premier accounting only, conditionally on four article types: (1) articles from dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with degree school faculty, (3) co-authored articles with degree school Ph.D. students, and (4) co-authored articles with affiliated school faculty. 1 We identify the names, affiliations, and publication performance of all 1,348 individuals in Hasselback (2004) who received Ph.D. degrees in accounting from 110 US Ph.D. granting institutions between 1991 and We provide rankings of 74 Ph.D. granting universities awarding at least six Ph.D. degrees in accounting between 1991 and 1997, based on affiliation and publication performance. 3 We conduct multivariate analyses of affiliation and publication performance using all 1,348 graduates from the 110 schools. Our multivariate analyses reveal that private school graduates are more likely to be placed in higher ranked institutions, but that private school graduates are not more likely to publish in the eight unconditionally and (for the three premier accounting ) conditionally on article type. Jacobs et al. (1986) ranked doctoral programs based on Ph.D. graduates publication performance. Hasselback et al. (2000) examined research productivity of accounting academics, providing benchmarks for articles needed for tenure and promotion. Other researchers performed multivariate analyses to examine whether graduating school and faculty affiliation affect placement and publication productivity (Fogarty and Ruhl 1997; Maranto and Streuly 1994). TDNN compared rankings based on faculty publications with rankings based on MBA rankings (source: US News and World Report rankings). TDNN examined the effect of institutional status on faculty publication and found no relation between institutional status and faculty publication after controlling for other factors. The TDNN results suggest that institutional status is unimportant for faculty publication, but it leaves unanswered a related question: Does institutional status matter for 1 We do not have a separate category for publishing with Ph.D. students from affiliated schools as there are only three individuals in this category. 2 We omit seven non-us institutions graduating a total of eight authors who published in the three premier accounting. We restrict our study to US Ph.D. granting institutions because TDNN only ranked US institutions. 3 We exclude schools with fewer than six graduates because we use percents. Small program sizes could significantly distort our rankings. Electronic copy available at:

3 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 287 Ph.D. placement? While conventional wisdom suggests that institutional status does matter for Ph.D. placement, the indirect evidence of TDNN suggests it does not matter. Our study fills this gap in the literature by conducting the first examination of the impact of institutional status of graduating institution on Ph.D. affiliation. We also examine the impact of institutional status of the graduating institution on the publication success of its Ph.D. graduates. Our publication performance analyses help to reconcile our affiliation results (institutional status matters) with the TDNN publication results (institutional status does not matter). We expect institutional status of the graduating institution to be positively related to the affiliation of Ph.D. graduates for three reasons. First, the relatively smaller doctoral programs, greater financial resources, and smaller student-faculty ratios (National Center of Education Statistics 2003) of private versus public schools enables private schools to attract more highly-qualified Ph.D. students so they should be more likely to place their Ph.D. graduates in ranked universities. Second, promotion and tenure requirements in private institutions are relatively more likely to be based on academic journal publications (Hagerman and Hagerman 1989) since private universities greater dependence on voluntary support increases their incentives to enhance their reputations. In contrast, public schools place greater demands on teaching (e.g., more courses; larger sections) and public service (Jordan et al. 1989; Dundar and Lewis 1998) so their lesser focus on research is likely to impart fewer research skills to their Ph.D. students, who teach more and may take fewer research-related courses. 4 Third, private schools relatively greater emphasis on research leads to more research support for Ph.D. students, such as better access to databases, more time for research, lower teaching loads, and higher quality faculty and Ph.D. students, primary determinants of published research (Cargile and Bublitz 1986). All of these factors should make private school graduates, ceteris paribus, more attractive to the higher-ranked schools. Ours is the first study to examine multiple article types. More specifically, we condition our publication analyses in the three premier accounting on four article types: (1) articles from dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with degree-school faculty, (3) coauthored articles with degree-school Ph.D. students, and (4) co-authored articles with affiliated faculty. Our conditional analyses have the potential either to add validity to our main results or to show that our main results pertain only to certain article types (e.g., graduating from a private school is important for publishing articles from one s dissertation but not for other article types). The remainder of our paper is divided into seven sections. We next explain our methodology. In the following two sections, we examine the affiliation and publication profiles of 74 US programs with at least six graduates during We investigate determinants of placement performance and publication performance in two subsequent sections, followed by analyses of article types. The final section provides a summary. 2 Methodology We examined the Accounting Faculty Directory (Hasselback 2004) to identify all individuals receiving their Ph.D.s from US schools during the 7-year period, In addition, public schools may have a mandate to provide educators for their regions. Thus, their main goal may not be to educate Ph.D.s who will be placed in ranked schools.

4 288 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana We determined the institutions from which they graduated and if the institutions were private or public. We examined Hasselback directories beginning with the 1997 edition and ending with the edition to determine affiliation 6 years after graduation. 6 TDNN ranked 178 accounting programs from 1 (best) to 178 (worst) but their published article includes only 50 business schools, and their website includes only 100 business schools. 7 Alan Dennis, a TDNN co-author, provided us with a complete listing of all 178 US ranked accounting programs so we code all institutions TDNN ranked with their ranks and all institutions TDNN did not rank as The 179 coding also applies to all individuals who were affiliated with industry. We measure publication performance using two sets of. First, we include only three accounting : TAR, JAR, and JAE, generally considered the most prestigious accounting (Ballas and Theoharakis 2003; Brown 2003). Second, we extend our analysis by considering publications in a set of eight accounting : the three premier plus CAR, JAAF, JAPP, AJPT, and RQFA. We perused all issues of these in to find the number of articles each individual published in these within 6 years after graduation. 9 We identified and examined four article types for the three premier accounting : (1) dissertation-based, (2) co-authored with faculty at school of degree, (3) co-authored with fellow Ph.D. students, or (4) co-authored with faculty at school of employment. 10 We identified 1,348 Ph.D.s graduating from 110 US Ph.D. granting institutions. Thirty six (33% of the total) of these schools are private and 74 are public. We classified a school as public if it was controlled by a government entity. Seventeen of the 36 private universities (47% of all privates) and 57 of the 74 public universities (77% of all publics) graduated more than five people between 1991 and The Accounting Faculty Directory compiled by Hasselback has been used for many accounting facultyrelated studies including Maranto and Streuly (1994) and Zivney et al. (1995). The Accounting Faculty Directory was published yearly (bi-annually) at the beginning (end) of our examination period. 6 To determine this, we examined the relevant Hasselback edition showing the individual s affiliation precisely 6 years after graduation. We use the term accounting Ph.D. program broadly as some schools offered DBAs not Ph.D.s (e.g., Harvard) during our time frame while others offered Ph.D.s but not in business (e.g., Notre Dame). Indeed, some members of accounting academia (e.g., the first named author of this article) obtained their Ph.D.s in other disciplines, such as economics, mathematics, or psychology. We paid special attention to name changes by female faculty members by comparing their names in the first Hasselback edition wherein they appeared with their names in the edition Thus, the 179 coding applies to all individuals who graduated from and/or were affiliated with: (1) US accounting programs not ranked in the top 178 or (2) non-us universities. This coding introduces measurement error because it classifies some strong non-us schools (e.g., University of British Columbia, London Business School, INSEAD, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) on a par with less research-oriented US schools. However, this artifact of the TDNN ranking procedure should not bias our results. 9 The TDNN business school ranks are based on the number of pages a business school s faculty published during the 13 years, , in 20, spanning eight disciplines. Similar to Fogarty and Ruhl (1997), we use number of publications rather than the computationally more difficult TDNN approach of number of pages. Consistent with TDNN and Fogarty and Ruhl (1997), we weight sole-authored and coauthored papers the same. We omit discussion papers. 10 An article may belong to multiple groups. For example, a coauthored article with a faculty member and a Ph.D. student from a degree school is coded as (2) and (3). Due to its costly nature, we did not determine article type for the other five accounting constituting the broader set of eight.

5 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 289 A Frequency of Grads B Frequency of Grads % 3.3% 1.9% 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Number of Publications 13.2% 5.1% 2.3% 2.6% 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Number of Publications Fig. 1 (A) Frequency of graduates publishing in three premier. (B) Frequency of graduates publishing in eight. Note: Number of graduates publishing as a percentage of total graduates (i.e., 1,348) is reported on the top of each bar We included in Tables 1 and 2 all 74 schools graduating six or more people. We included in Tables 3, 4 and 5 all 1,348 graduates from all 110 schools. We show in the appendix the following information regarding those Ph.D. graduates who published at least one article in at least one of the eight within 6 years of graduation. We include the individual s name (in descending order of number of publications in the three premier ), year of graduation, school of degree, institutional affiliation, number of publications in the three premier accounting, and number of publications in the broader set of eight. The appendix reveals that only 192 of 1,348 (14.2%) of the graduates published at least one article in at least one of the three premier accounting within 6 years of graduation, and that only 335 of 1,348 (24.9%) of them published at least one article in at least one of the broader set of eight accounting within 6 years of graduation. Figure 1 show the percent of total graduates who published one or more articles. Panel A shows the distribution for the three premier accounting and panel B shows the distribution for the broader set of eight accounting. About half of those who published in either the three premier or the broader set of eight published only once therein within 6 years of graduation, and only about 20% of those who published in either the three premier or the broader set of eight published more than twice therein within 6 years of graduation. Both figures show that only 14.2% of

6 290 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana all 1,348 graduates published one or more articles in the three premier and about a quarter of the graduates published at least one article in the eight. 3 Affiliation profile of 74 Ph.D. programs We ranked all 74 programs from highest to lowest based on the magnitude of the percent of Ph.D. graduates affiliated with the top 178 US accounting programs 6 years after graduation. Table 1 presents the results. Over 75% of graduates from the top three accounting programs (Cornell, Rochester and Pennsylvania) were affiliated with the top 178 US accounting programs 6 years after graduation. In contrast, none of the graduates of three accounting programs (Florida International, Syracuse and Virginia Commonwealth) were affiliated with any of the top 178 US accounting programs 6 years after graduation. The 17 private schools, on average, have relatively more graduates affiliated with the top 178 US accounting programs than do the 57 public schools (42.1% vs. 31.2%). We do not undertake a significance test of this difference because the information pertains only to 74 of the 110 Ph.D. granting institutions in our sample (i.e., programs with six or more graduates); and univariate analyses ignore factors past research has shown are related to institutional affiliation. We conduct multivariate analyses below. 4 Publication profile of graduates from 74 Ph.D. programs Table 2 presents the percent of Ph.D. graduates from the 74 schools publishing at least one article in three premier accounting (panel A) and in the broader set of eight accounting (panel B) within 6 years after graduation. We ranked the 47 schools with at least one graduate publishing in three premier from 1 to 47, and we assigned the rank 48 to all other 27 Ph.D. programs with zero graduates publishing in these. 11 Of the 47 schools with non-zero percents in the three premier, the percent of Ph.D.s publishing in premier accounting 6 years out ranges from a high of 77.8% (Pennsylvania, ranked 1st) to a low of 4.3% (Oklahoma State, ranked 47th). While not tabulated, the Pearson correlation between our Table 1 placement rankings and our panel A of Table 2 publication rankings is Nevertheless, some schools rank much higher in Table 1 than in panel A of Table 2 while others rank much higher in panel A of Table 2 than in Table The former group, indicating schools whose graduates place better than their subsequent publication success merits, includes University of Texas- Austin, University of Florida, Michigan State University, Ohio State University, University of Southern California, and Arizona State University. The latter group, indicating schools whose graduates subsequent publication success is better than their placement merits, includes Stanford University, University of Minnesota, University of Arizona, Washington University (Saint Louis), University of Iowa, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, New York University, and University of Pittsburgh. 11 We use Ph.D. graduate publication performance to rank accounting Ph.D. programs. Publication performance is a common method used to rank accounting programs (Chan et al. 2005). Other methods of ranking accounting Ph.D. programs are perception, citation, and working paper download (Brown and Laksmana 2004). 12 The text discusses only those cases where a school is ranked in the top 20 based on at least one of the two rankings and whose Table 1 rank differs by more than five places from its Table 2 Panel A rank.

7 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 291 Table 1 Employment profile of accounting Ph.D. graduates: 6 years after graduation Rank Ph.D. granting school No. Ph.D. grads Grads. employed by TDNN ranked schools (%) 1 Cornell Rochester Pennsylvania California-Berkeley Northwestern Michigan Michigan State Arizona State Stanford Texas-Austin Chicago Washington-Seattle Ohio State Southern California Indiana Florida Illinois Central Florida Iowa Arizona Penn State Minnesota Carnegie Mellon Purdue Washington-St. Louis Colorado-Boulder Connecticut CUNY-Baruch College Oregon Case Western Florida State Missouri-Columbia South Florida Tennessee UNC-Chapel Hill Georgia Texas A&M Wisconsin-Madison New York University Pittsburgh Oklahoma State Columbia SUNY-Buffalo

8 292 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana Table 1 continued Rank Ph.D. granting school No. Ph.D. grads Grads. employed by TDNN ranked schools (%) 42 Virginia Tech South Carolina Texas Tech Maryland-College Park Arkansas North Texas Cincinnati Georgia State Utah Drexel Rutgers Louisiana State Oklahoma Kansas Washington State Texas-Arlington Houston Kent State Kentucky California-Los Angeles Union Mississippi Alabama-Tuscaloosa George Washington Memphis Temple St Louis Nebraska Florida International Syracuse Virginia Commonwealth Private schools (17 schools) 42.1 Public schools (57 schools) 31.2 Notes: Only 74 Ph.D. granting universities awarding at least six Ph.D. degrees in accounting between 1991 and 1997 are reported. The requirement of six or more graduates is imposed to mitigate problems arising from using ratios with small divisors. Private schools are italicized The graduates of the 17 private schools, on average, are more likely to publish in the premier accounting 6 years after graduation than do the 57 public schools (27.0% vs. 11.5%). We do not undertake a significance test of this difference for similar reasons we offered above when discussing our affiliation results. We conduct multivariate analyses below.

9 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 293 Table 2 Publication profile of accounting Ph.D. graduates: 6 years after graduation Ph.D. granting School No. Ph.D. Grads Panel A Grads. publishing in 3 (%) Rank Panel B Grads. publishing in 8 (%) Rank Pennsylvania Stanford Rochester Northwestern Michigan Cornell Iowa California-Berkeley Chicago Indiana Arizona North Carolina-Chapel Hill Washington-Seattle Washington-St. Louis Minnesota Michigan State Texas-Austin Illinois New York University Pittsburgh Wisconsin-Madison Penn State Florida Ohio State CUNY-Baruch College Case Western Georgia Purdue SUNY-Buffalo Arizona State Carnegie Mellon Texas A&M Oregon Southern California Connecticut Maryland-College Park Washington State Florida State Missouri-Columbia Temple Drexel

10 294 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana Table 2 continued Ph.D. granting School No. Ph.D. Grads Panel A Grads. publishing in 3 (%) Rank Panel B Grads. publishing in 8 (%) Rank Colorado-Boulder Virginia Commonwealth Oklahoma Texas-Arlington South Carolina Oklahoma State Kansas Cincinnati Kent State Houston Georgia State North Texas Louisiana State Union California-Los Angeles South Florida Utah Alabama-Tuscaloosa Kentucky Rutgers George Washington Nebraska St Louis Tennessee Texas Tech Virginia Tech Mississippi Columbia Syracuse Arkansas Central Florida Florida International Memphis Private schools (17 schools) Public schools (57 schools) Note: Only 74 Ph.D. granting universities awarding at least six Ph.D. degrees in accounting between 1991 and 1997 are reported. The requirement of six or more graduates is imposed to mitigate problems arising from using ratios with small divisors. Private schools are italicized While not tabulated, the Pearson correlation between our panel A and panel B of Table 2 publication rankings is Nevertheless, some schools rank much higher in panel A than in panel B while others rank much higher in panel B than in panel

11 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 295 A. 13 The former group, indicating schools whose graduates are relatively more likely to publish in the premier versus in a broader set of, includes Carnegie Mellon University, SUNY-Buffalo, Michigan State University, Indiana University, Temple University, University of Oregon, University of Chicago, University of Maryland, University of Illinois, University of North Carolina, Texas A&M, University of Wisconsin-Madison, CUNY-Baruch, and University of Pittsburgh. The latter group, indicating schools whose graduates are relatively more likely to publish in a broader set of than in the most premier, includes Washington University (Saint Louis), University of Missouri, New York University, Florida State University, University of Connecticut, and University of Southern California. 5 Determinants of placement success The Table 1 findings suggest that Ph.D. graduates from private schools are more likely than those of public schools to be employed by the 178 ranked TDNN accounting programs 6 years after graduation, but these results do not use all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates in our sample and ignore the following facts: (1) private schools are relatively more likely than public schools to have higher accounting program ranks; (2) accounting program rank is likely to be an important determinant of placement success; and (3) TDNN show other variables that are significantly related to their proxy for research quality, namely: Total faculty, percent of assistant professors, percent of full professors, and editorships. Thus, we run the following multiple regression equation: Placement Success ¼ b 1 þ b 2 Degree Rank þ b 3 Private þ b 4 Total Facultyþ b 5 Percent Assistant þ b 6 Percent Full þ b 7 Editorships where Placement Success is 1 multiplied by the TDNN accounting program rank of the institution the individual is affiliated with. The program rankings range from the highest ( = 1) to the lowest ( = 179). 14 Degree Rank is 1 multiplied by the TDNN rank of the accounting program from which the individual graduated. Private is a dummy variable indicating if the institution from which the individual graduated is private (coded 1) or public (coded 0). Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in 1994, excluding visiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive professors), faculty holding administrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty. 15 Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as a percent of total tenure-track faculty at the degree school in The text discusses only those cases where a school is ranked in the top 40 based on the percent of its graduates who published in the three premier and whose rank differs by more than five places in the two panels. 14 Similar to our univariate analyses, we code all accounting programs not ranked by TDNN as equal to 179. We multiply ranks by minus one to facilitate interpretation of results. A positive coefficient indicates that higher ranked schools are more likely to place their graduates in higher ranked schools. 15 We assume that faculty size is approximately steady during the examination period ( ). Thus, we use the 1994 faculty size and composition of the degree schools in our multivariate analyses.

12 296 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana Table 3 Determinants of placement success. Placement success = b 1 + b 2 *Degree Rank + b 3 *Private + b 4 *Total Faculty + b 5 *Percent Assistant + b 6 *Percent Full + b 7 *Editorships Independent variable Predicted sign Coefficient (t-stat.) Intercept? ( 15.19)*** Degree Rank (7.40)*** Private (2.02)** Total Faculty (0.39) Percent Assistant ( 0.56) Percent Full (1.87)** Editorships (7.70)*** N 1,348 Adj. R % F-Statistic 50.53*** Note: t-statistics are in parentheses *** (**) indicates significance at the 0.01 (0.05) level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate Placement success is the TDNN (2000) accounting program rank of the school that the individual is employed at Degree Rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program from which the individual graduated Private is a dummy variable indicating whether the institution from which the individual graduated is private (=1) or public (=0) Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in 1994, excluding visiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive professors), faculty holding administrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty at the degree school in 1994 Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty at the degree school in 1994 Editorships are the number of years during that the degree school was home to an editor or associate editor of TAR, JAR or JAE Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as a percent of total tenuretrack faculty at the degree school in Editorships are the number of years during that the degree school was home to an editor or associate editor of TAR, JAR or JAE. 16 We expect the coefficient on Degree Rank to be positive because past research has shown that the quality of the institution where the individual is employed is positively related to the quality of the institution wherefrom the individual graduated (Fogarty and Ruhl, 1997). We expect the signs of the coefficients on Total Faculty, Percent Assistant, Percent Full, and Editorships to be positive since TDNN find them to be positive and significant in their regressions, and both their dependent variable and ours measure research quality. Based on the arguments we made in the introduction, we expect the sign of the coefficient on Private to be positive. We present our results in Table 3. As expected, the coefficients of Degree Rank (b 2 ) and Private (b 3 ) are positive and significant (at the 0.05 level or better, one-tailed). 17 Consistent 16 In untabulated results, we find that the results are robust to using editorships of the broader set of eight. 17 Since the highest (lowest) ranked program has a Degree Rank of 1 ( 179), a positive coefficient reveals that private schools do a better job of placing their graduates.

13 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 297 with TDNN, Percent Full and Editorships are significant determinants of our proxy for research quality (Ph.D. placements), but, in contrast to TDNN, we do not find Total Faculty or Percent Assistant to be significant. Thus, institutional status matters for affiliation success, i.e., Ph.D. graduates of private schools are relatively more likely to be affiliated with higher ranked schools 6 years after graduation. 6 Determinants of publication success The Table 2 results suggest that Ph.D. graduates of private schools are relatively more likely than those of public schools to publish in premier accounting within 6 years after graduation but these results do not use all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates in our sample and ignore the following facts: (1) private schools are relatively more likely than public schools to have higher accounting program ranks; (2) accounting program rank of an individual s doctoral program is likely to be an important determinant of publication success; (3) accounting program rank of the individual s affiliated school is likely to be an important determinant of publication success; and (4) TDNN identify other variables significantly impacting faculty publication success: total faculty, percent of assistant professors, percent of full professors, and editorships. Thus, we run the following multiple regression equation: Publication Success ¼ b 1 þ b 2 Degree Rank þ b 3 Private þ b 4 Affiliation Rankþ b 5 Total Faculty þ b 6 Percent Assistant þ b 7 Percent Full þ b 8 Editorships where Publication Success is defined in two ways: (1) number of articles the individual published in accounting, and (2) whether the individual published in accounting (coded 1 or 0 for yes or no, respectively), where we consider both three premier and a broader set of eight. 18 Degree Rank is 1 multiplied by the TDNN rank of the accounting program that the individual graduated from. Private is a dummy variable indicating whether the institution from which the individual graduated is private (coded 1) or public (coded 0). Affiliation Rank is 1 multiplied by the TDNN rank of the accounting program with which the individual is affiliated. Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in 1994, excluding visiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive professors), faculty holding administrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty. Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as a percent of total tenure-track faculty in the degree school in Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as a percent of total tenuretrack faculty in the degree school in Editorships are the number of years during that the degree school was home to an editor or an associate editor of at least one accounting journal. We consider only the three premier when our dependent variable is publication success in the three, and the boarder set of eight accounting when our dependent variable is publication success in the eight. 18 We use ordinary least squares regression for modeling number of publications and logistic regression for modeling whether or not the individual published in the three premier or the broader set of eight.

14 298 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana We expect the coefficients of Degree Rank and Affiliation Rank to be positive as graduates of higher ranked programs and individuals affiliated with higher ranked programs have better resources to help them publish in the premier accounting. We expect Total Faculty, Percent Assistant, Percent Full, and Editorships to be positive since TDNN find them to be positive and significant in their regressions. Consistent with TDNN, we expect the sign of Private to be insignificant once we control for Degree Rank and Affiliation Rank along with the variables that TDNN found to be significant. We run four regressions, two for our above two measures of publication success and two for the number of we consider, three and eight, respectively. We present our results in Table 4, where panel A (B) contains results for the three (eight) accounting. As expected, Affiliation Rank is positive and significant in all regressions (at the 0.01 level, one-tailed). Degree Rank is significant only in the publish/not publish regressions (at the 0.01 level, one-tailed). Consistent with TDNN, Editorships is positive in all regressions and significant in three of them (p-value \ 0.01, one-tailed). In contrast to TDNN, Percent Assistant and Percent Full are insignificant while Total Faculty is negative and significant in two regressions. Consistent with TDNN, Private is insignificant, revealing that institutional status does not matter for publication by Ph.D. graduates in the premier accounting and the eight once we control for Degree Rank, Affiliation Rank, and the control variables that TDNN found to be significant. It may seem that our affiliation success results contradict both our publication success results and the TDNN publication success results. We do not believe this is so, and we offer the following plausible scenario for reconciling the results. Ranked schools recognize that private school graduates, on average, are better trained than public school graduates so they are more likely to hire private school graduates (our Table 3 results). Ranked schools hire those (albeit fewer) public school graduates who are just as likely to succeed at the publication game as are the graduates of the private schools. The fact that institutional status matters neither for publication by Ph.D. graduates (our results) nor by faculty (TDNN results) is consistent with each other and with our affiliation results. 7 Determinants of publication success by article type Having shown that institutional status of the graduating institution does not matter for publication success, we examine if our findings for publishing in the three premier are robust to four article types: (1) articles based on dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with faculty from degree granting institutions, (3) co-authored articles with Ph.D. students from degree granting institutions, and (4) co-authored articles with faculty from affiliated institutions. It is plausible that our unconditional findings do not hold for all article categories. For example, a thesis developed at a private school may be more likely to be published if it utilized better data, subjects, software, or if it had a more research-oriented thesis committee. Table 5 reports results of four logistic regressions. Our dependent variable is the author publishes (coded 1) or does not publish (coded 0) a particular article type in a premier accounting journal. In general, our Table 5 results mirror our Table 4 results. More specifically, Degree Rank is positive and significant in all four cases (at the 0.05 level or better, one-tailed). Affiliation Rank is positive and significant in all four cases (at the 0.01 level, one-tailed). Graduating institutional status (Private) is not positive and significant in any of the regressions, suggesting that individuals graduating from private universities do not have a publication advantage with respect to any of the four article types we examine, once we control for other factors. Interestingly, individuals graduating from private

15 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 299 Table 4 Determinants of publication success. Publication success = b 1 + b 2 *Degree Rank + b 3 *Private + b 4 *Affiliation Rank + b 5 *Total Faculty + b 6 *Percent Assistant + b 7 *Percent Full + b 8 *Editorships Independent variable Predicted sign Panel A No. publication in 3 (N = 1,348) Publish/Not publish in 3 (N = 1,348) Panel B No. publication in 8 (N = 1,348) Publish/not publish in 8 (N = 1,348) Intercept? 1.31 (9.17)*** 0.53 (1.67) 1.92 (10.53)*** 0.42 (1.97) Degree (0.99) 0.01 (18.98)*** (1.52) (6.52)*** Rank Private? (0.05) 0.09 (0.38) 0.07 (0.96) 0.13 (1.29) Affiliation (17.45)*** 0.01 (155.27)*** 0.01 (19.62)*** 0.01 (167.83)*** rank Total Faculty ( 2.62) (1.30) 0.01 ( 1.65) (0.04) Percent (0.04) 0.22 (0.27) 0.07 (0.39) 0.36 (1.29) Assistant Percent Full (0.09) 0.23 (0.24) 0.07 (0.36) 0.18 (0.29) Editorships (7.06)*** 0.03 (1.56) 0.05 (4.51)*** 0.04 (5.90)*** N Adj. R % 32.70% F-Statistic 89.97*** 94.21*** v 2 statistic *** *** t-statistics (v 2 statistics) are in parentheses for the OLS (logistic) regressions *** (**) indicates significance at the 0.01 (0.05) level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate +++ indicates unpredicted sign, significant at the 0.01 level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate Publication success is defined in two ways: (1) number of articles the individual published in the three (eight) accounting, and (2) whether the individual published in the three (eight) accounting (coded 1 or 0 for yes or no, respectively). We use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression for modeling number of publications and logistic regression for modeling whether or not the individual published in the three (eight) Degree Rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program from which the individual graduated Private is a dummy variable indicating whether the institution from which the individual graduated is private (=1) or public (=0) Affiliation rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program at which the individual is employed Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in 1994, excluding visiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive professors), faculty holding administrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty in the degree school in 1994 Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty in the degree school in 1994 Editorships are the number of years during that the degree school was home to an editor or associate editor of any of the three (eight) universities are at a publication disadvantage with respect to co-authored articles with faculty from degree granting institution, suggesting that faculty at public institutions are more likely to work with their best graduates (perhaps because they have relatively fewer Ph.D. students with such publication skills). It is evident that our unconditional finding that

16 300 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana Table 5 Determinants of publication success in the top three by article type article type = b 1 + b 2 *Degree Rank + b 3 *Private + b 4 *Affiliation Rank + b 5 *Total Faculty + b6*percent Assistant + b7*percent Full + b8*editorships Independent variable Intercept Degree Rank Private Affiliation rank Total Faculty Percent Assistant Predicted sign? +? Percent Full Editorships v 2 statistic Publish dissertation 0.81 (1.53) 0.03 (13.24)*** 0.24 (1.47) 0.01 (62.49)*** 0.01 (0.30) 0.34 (0.33) 1.01 (2.02) 0.01 (0.07) *** Publish with degree school faculty 0.57 (1.13) 0.01 (12.60)*** 0.34 (3.18) (40.17)*** 0.00 (0.11) 0.51 (0.93) 0.56 (0.83) 0.00 (0.01) *** Publish with degree school Ph.D. student 0.12 (0.04) 0.01 (4.82)** 0.12 (0.33) 0.01 (39.57)*** 0.02 (2.86) (0.14) 0.21 (0.10) 0.04 (1.32) *** Publish with affiliated school faculty 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (5.68)*** 0.18 (0.78) 0.01 (67.25)*** 0.03 (4.53) (0.34) 0.07 (0.01) 0.07 (3.56)** *** Results are based on logistic regressions v 2 statistics are in parentheses *** (**) indicates significance at the 0.01 (0.05) level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate ++ (+) indicates unpredicted sign, significant at the 0.05 (0.10) level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate Dissertation is 1 if the individual published her/his dissertation in the three premier ; 0 otherwise Degree school faculty is 1 if the individual published a coauthored article in the three premier with a faculty from school of degree; 0 otherwise Degree School Ph.D. Student is 1 if the individual published a coauthored article in the three premier with a fellow Ph.D. student from school of degree; 0 otherwise Affiliated school faculty is 1 if the individual published a coauthored article in the three premier with a faculty from school of employment; 0 otherwise Degree Rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program from which the individual graduated Private is a dummy variable indicating whether the institution from which the individual graduated is private (=1) or public (=0) Affiliation rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program at which the individual is employed Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in 1994, excluding visiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive professors), faculty holding administrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty in the degree school in 1994 Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty in the degree school in 1994 Editorships are the number of years during that the degree school was home to an editor or associate editor of TAR, JAR, or JAE

17 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 301 graduates of private schools do not have more publication success, controlling for such factors as rank of both the graduating and affiliated institutions, pertains to all four article types (conditions) we examine. Total Faculty, Percent Assistant, and Percent Full are not positive and significant in any of the four regressions. Editorships is significant in only in the Affiliated School Faculty regressions (p-value \ 0.05, one-tailed). Thus, it appears that our Table 4 results for Editorships are driven by this article type. 8 Summary We identify 1,348 Ph.D. graduates from 110 US schools during the 7-year period, We examine the affiliation success and publication success 6 years after graduation as it is the time horizon for most tenure decisions. Our multivariate analyses define affiliation success as the accounting ranking of the school they are affiliated with, based on the rankings by Trieschmann et al. (2000) [TDNN]. Similar to TDNN, we define publication success as publishing in the three most premier accounting : The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research and Journal of Accounting and Economics. In addition, we extend their analyses by considering publications in a broader set of eight accounting : the three premier accounting plus Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. We identify 74 US schools that graduated six or more accounting Ph.D.s during , and we rank them on two dimensions: percent of Ph.D.s affiliated with the top 178 TDNN accounting ranked US schools (Table 1) and percent of Ph.D.s publishing at least one article in a premier accounting journal (panel A of Table 2) or a in a broader set of eight accounting (panel B of Table 2). We show that our Tables 1 and 2 panel A ranks are highly associated with each other (Pearson correlation = 0.81), but that some schools are considerably more highly ranked based on affiliation success than on publication success (e.g., Arizona State) while others are considerably more highly ranked based on publication success than on affiliation success (e.g., Arizona). We model affiliations of all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates from all 110 schools based on the graduating school s institutional status (private or public), TDNN accounting rank of graduating institution, and the four other variables TDNN found to be significant. We show that Ph.D. graduates of private schools are more likely to be affiliated with ranked schools, even after controlling for rank of graduating institution and four TDNN variables. We model publications of all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates based on institutional status (private or public), TDNN accounting rank of graduating institution, TDNN accounting rank of affiliated institution, and four control variables suggested by TDNN. We show that Ph.D. graduates of private schools do not publish more in the premier or the broader set of eight, and that this result pertains to all four article types we examined for the three premier : (1) articles based on dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with degree school faculty, (3) co-authored articles with degree school Ph.D. students, and (4) co-authored articles with affiliated faculty. Thus, it is evident that institutional status of the graduating institution does not matter for publication, either by faculty members (TDNN result) or by Ph.D. graduates (our results). We close with some caveats. First, we rely on TDNN data and Hasselback data so our results are only as reliable as are these data. However, any data errors therein are likely to

18 302 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana be random so measurement errors should not induce an a priori bias into our results. Second, we define publication success as articles published in three premier or a broader set of eight. We recognize that most used in the present study publish a larger percent of financial articles than is representative of the accounting academy (Brown 2003) so our publication results are biased against programs focusing on such areas as tax and accounting information systems. Third, public schools have become more dependent in recent years on private sources, blurring the distinction between public and private schools. However, this has the effect of reducing the power of our tests, making it harder for us to find that institutional status matters for affiliation success. Fourth, we document that institutional status of graduating institution does not exert a direct effect on publication success. However, we show that it exerts an indirect effect via its impact on institutional affiliation, which is an important determinant of publication success. Thus, our results should not be interpreted as the graduates of public institutions publish as much as do graduates of private institutions. Indeed, graduates of public institutions generally publish relatively less, partly because they are relatively less likely to be affiliated with ranked schools. Acknowledgments We thank Alan Dennis for accounting program rankings data. We thank Nan Liu for research assistance and Sudipta Basu, Robert Bowen, Marcus Caylor, Liyu Luo, and Alan Reinstein for helpful comments. Appendix Appendix A US accounting Ph.D. graduates publishing in the three premier and eight Last name First name Year Grad. School of degree Institutional affiliation 6 years after graduation No. publication 6 years after graduation In 3 In 8 Sloan Richard G Rochester Michigan 9 10 Kasznik Ron 1995 California-Berkeley Stanford 7 7 Amir Eli 1991 California-Berkeley Columbia 6 9 Dechow P.M Rochester Michigan 6 7 Maydew Edward L Iowa Chicago 6 7 Aboody David 1995 California-Berkeley California-Los Angeles 6 6 Erickson Merle 1996 Arizona Chicago 6 6 Jacob John 1995 Northwestern Colorado-Denver 6 6 Gigler Frank B Minnesota Chicago 5 5 Kennedy Jane 1992 Duke Washington-Seattle 5 5 Stanford-Harris Mary 1994 Michigan Syracuse 5 5

19 Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 303 Appendix A continued Last name First name Year Grad. School of degree Institutional affiliation 6 years after graduation No. publication 6 years after graduation In 3 In 8 Wong M. H. Franco 1997 Pennsylvania Chicago 5 5 Subramanyam K. R Wisconsin-Madison Southern California 4 6 Arya Anil 1991 Iowa Ohio State 4 5 Bushee Brian 1997 Michigan Pennsylvania 4 5 Glover Jonathan 1992 Ohio State Carnegie Mellon 4 5 Bloomfield Robert J Michigan Cornell 4 4 D Sousa Julia 1995 Northwestern Cornell 4 4 Hanna J. Douglas 1991 Cornell Chicago 4 4 Hutton Amy P Rochester Harvard 4 4 Ittner Christopher D Harvard Pennsylvania 4 4 Kemsley Deen 1995 N. Carolina- Columbia 4 4 Chapel Hill Muller Karl A., III 1997 Illinois Penn State 4 4 Nelson Karen K Michigan Stanford 4 4 Peecher Mark E Illinois Illinois 4 4 Vincent Linda 1995 Northwestern Northwestern 4 4 Walther Beverly 1995 Chicago Northwestern 4 4 Barron Orie 1993 Oregon Penn State 3 5 Mayhew Brian 1997 Arizona Wisconsin-Madison 3 5 Rees Lynn 1994 Arizona State Texas A&M 3 5 Ashbaugh Hollis 1997 Iowa Wisconsin-Madison 3 4 Ayers Benjamin 1996 Texas-Austin Georgia 3 4 Beatty Anne 1992 MIT Penn State 3 4 Clement Michael B Stanford Texas-Austin 3 4 Hayes Rachel M Stanford Chicago 3 4 Hirst D. Eric 1992 Minnesota Texas-Austin 3 4 Venkatachalam Mohan 1996 Iowa Stanford 3 4 Wahlen James M Michigan N. Carolina-Chapel Hill 3 4 Willenborg Michael 1996 Penn State Connecticut 3 4 Billings Bruce K Penn State Florida State 3 3 Eldenburg Leslie 1991 Washington-Seattle Arizona 3 3 Engel Ellen 1997 Stanford Chicago 3 3 Frankel Richard 1993 Stanford Michigan 3 3 Hopkins Patrick E Texas-Austin Indiana 3 3 Matsunaga Steven R Washington-Seattle Oregon 3 3 Mills Lillian F Michigan Arizona 3 3

20 304 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana Appendix A continued Last name First name Year Grad. School of degree Institutional affiliation 6 years after graduation No. publication 6 years after graduation In 3 In 8 Myers James N Michigan Illinois 3 3 Nanda D. J Rochester Michigan 3 3 Noe Christopher 1996 Rochester n/a 3 3 Rock Steve 1996 Penn State Colorado 3 3 Schrand Catherine M Chicago Pennsylvania 3 3 Sprinkle Geoffrey B Iowa Indiana 3 3 Johnstone Karla M Connecticut Wisconsin-Madison 2 5 Chamberlain Sandra 1991 Chicago Santa Clara 2 4 Cloyd C. Bryan 1992 Indiana Texas 2 4 Houston Richard W Indiana Alabama-Tuscaloosa 2 4 Huddart Steven J Yale Duke 2 4 Schwartz Rachel 1994 Northwestern Washington-St Louis 2 4 Soo Billy S Northwestern Boston College 2 4 Whisenant Scott 1997 Oklahoma Houston 2 4 Beasley Mark S Michigan State N. Carolina State 2 3 Duru Augustine 1997 Maryland-College American U. 2 3 Park Hogan Chris E Ohio State Vanderbilt 2 3 Klassen Kenneth J Stanford Waterloo 2 3 Krishnan Jagan 1991 Ohio State Temple 2 3 Lehavy Reuven 1997 Northwestern California-Berkeley 2 3 Marquardt Carol 1997 Cornell New York Univ. 2 3 Peters Michael F Indiana Maryland- 2 3 College Park Pfeiffer Ray J., Jr N. Carolina- Massachusetts 2 3 Chapel Hill Ramesh K Michigan State Rochester 2 3 Ahmed Anwar S Rochester Florida 2 2 Alles Michael 1991 Stanford Texas 2 2 Berger Philip G Chicago Pennsylvania 2 2 Botosan Christine 1995 Michigan Utah 2 2 Calegari Michael 1996 Arizona Santa Clara 2 2 Cheon Youngsoon Susan 1994 Georgia Chung-Ang 2 2 Core John E Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 2 2 Dichev Ilia D 1995 Washington- Michigan 2 2 Seattle Frankel Micah 1991 Arizona Cal. State-Hayward 2 2