The authors respond:

We certainly agree that effort should be placed on preventing acts of academic dishonesty. We believe two areas need to be addressed in order to deter academic dishonesty: a change in culture, and development of appropriate policies and procedures for preventing academic dishonesty and handling such acts if they occur. According to various studies by Professor Donald McCabe, the founding president of the Center for Academic Integrity (CAI), as cited in our article, creating a culture that encourages academic honesty is very important to prevent acts of academic dishonesty from occurring. The writer’s suggestion to help students understand that cheating is a waste of their time and money should be part of the efforts in creating such a culture. One way this can be done is through orientation sessions for freshmen and transfer students. Implementing an honor code (as we described in the article as one of the first steps that should be taken) is an important step in fostering a culture that values an honest pursuit of education.

We strongly encourage colleges to take steps to create a strong culture of academic honesty, implement policies and procedures to handle academic dishonesty, and to make sure that such policies and procedures are followed. If acts of academic dishonesty are not handled properly, we believe that other efforts (such as your example) will be less effective.

Non-CPA Ownership? Resist the Temptation.

I wanted to respond to Lou Grumet’s Publisher’s Column in May, “Should Non-CPAs Be Allowed to Co-Own CPA Firms?”

About me: I am a CPA, licensed to practice in New York since February 1974. I worked my first eight years at a Big Eight firm and have worked in industry since then. I have also taught as an adjunct professor, undergraduate courses at Fordham University and graduate courses at Long Island University.

Anything that further diminishes the perception or the reality in the public’s mind of the professionalism and independence of CPAs is a very bad thing. It is not a question of weighing the pros versus cons in this matter; I see it as all cons.

Nobody is suggesting that CPA firms can’t pay their employees whatever the market requires to retain the services of any number of qualified individuals in varied fields to ensure staff retention and high-quality audits, but CPA firms need to be 100% CPAs. I say, if a firm wants to accept an attest engagement, the firm must be 100% CPAs. H&R Block can hire (and give ownership to) whomever it wants.

I would think that the profession learned its lesson from the go-go pre-Enron days when we did “risk-based” auditing. The one thing that makes the CPA a learned profession, the one thing we can do that no one else is qualified to do—attest—we gave away in order to sell consulting engagements. Post-PCAOB, this has changed. I could show you my Big Eight firm’s audit approach manual from 1973, and the audit work we are doing now is totally comparable to what we routinely did on audit engagements then, if a little less so.

Like my mother used to ask me when I was a kid: “If Johnny runs off a cliff, does that mean you have to also?” Well, if 45 states run off a cliff, should New York, the preeminent state for CPAs, jump off the cliff? Resist the temptation. Running with the crowd might seem popular at the moment, but people will respect our position and I predict will eventually come back to our side.

My vote = 100% (or nothing). Either we’re CPAs or we’re not. Don’t confuse easy or popular with right. Let New York set the example. When I was in a Big Eight firm, the New York office would get a lot of work from other states. I even had a client in an out-of-town city where we had a practice office on the same block, but the client wanted New York CPAs, not local ones from the same firm.

Ralph J. Scala, CPA