Survey Results Show Members Oppose Global Credential

Three sets of questions addressed the possible benefit of an additional credential and the likelihood that members would seek one:

The majority of respondents did not view any of the three possible additional credentials as advantageous. In the case of the “more encompassing” credential, fully two-thirds of those who answered the questionnaire believed it would not be beneficial.

Respondents were even more negative when asked if they would actually pursue one of these possible additional credentials; approximately 61 to 77 percent indicated that they would not. Interestingly, in the case of an international credential, an additional analysis indicated that even among the minority who considered such a credential helpful, over half indicated that they would not seek it.

There was some variation among different subgroups regarding the benefit and likelihood of seeking an additional credential. These results are summarized in Table 1.

Overall, the level of support for the possible credentials was low. What is striking is that the most negative subgroup consisted of members who stated that they had “a clear understanding of the Cognitor/XYZ concept as proposed by the AICPA and how it will be implemented.”

Some subgroups were less negative than others concerning the additional credentials. For example, females (who constituted less than 14 percent of the respondents) were more likely to see the possible additional credentials as advantageous, and were also more likely to say they would seek such credentials. But even the female subgroup did not express strong support for the additional credentials. Members in industry also responded somewhat less negatively compared to those in public practice.

Regulation of the Proposed Additional Credential

Responses of the subgroups as well as the entire group were least negative with regard to the questions relating to a possible additional credential that would be “national in scope.” This is very likely related to the fact that over 82 percent of the respondents agreed that the CPA license issued by any one state should be accepted by other states.

Clearly, there is a concern about interstate licensing issues. However, despite the overwhelming support for interstate licensing reciprocity, more than two-thirds (68.6 percent) of the respondents did not want the federal government to issue and regulate the CPA license.

With regard to a possible new national or international credential, the majority (65.5 percent) of respondents preferred that it be issued and regulated by a nongovernmental accrediting association rather than a government body.

Several questions dealt with who should be eligible to obtain the new credential. An overwhelming majority of respondents (86.4 percent) believed that it would not be advantageous for the CPA profession to have a professional designation that is also issued to non-CPA professionals. Also, most respondents (82 percent) did not think a professional designation that is also issued to other non-CPA professionals would be advantageous to themselves personally.

The responses to a question that asked:

The high percentage of no responses to this question suggests that some members may have been reluctant to answer because of a “did you stop beating your spouse” dilemma, a scenario where the question assumes a situation that may not be true. Given that so many respondents felt that issuing the new designation to non-CPAs was not advantageous, some of them may have felt that answering “yes” would mean they approved of non-CPAs being eligible for the new professional designation, while answering “no” would indicate that they did not feel the need for any limitations, and so left the item blank.

The most negative response to any of the questions was to the one that asked if members liked the name Cognitor. Fewer than 3 percent of the respondents indicated that they did.

Respondents also had a strong reaction to the question asking: “Should an AICPA vote on the Cognitor/XYZ concept be postponed until more information is available?” Over 83 percent of the total group responded “yes” to this question.

Responses to all of the questions discussed in this section were comparable across subgroups, with one exception. In the case of postponing the AICPA vote, a comparison of respondents who did not have a clear understanding of the Cognitor/XYZ concept with respondents who did have a clear understanding indicated that the first group was more likely (89.9 percent) to favor postponing the vote than the second (69.3 percent).

Public Image of the CPA Designation

Overall, 63.5 percent of the respondents believed that the CPA designation is as prestigious as it once was, but just 32.4 percent felt that the public’s perception of the CPA matches what CPAs do. Only 21.8 percent believed that an additional credential would better define for the public the range of services CPAs currently provide.

In the case of prestige, males and females, as well as CPAs in public practice and industry, responded similarly. However, of those who thought the public’s perception matched what CPAs do, 87.9 percent believed the CPA designation is as prestigious as it once was.

There were a number of subgroup variations with regard to whether the public’s perception matches what CPAs do and whether an additional credential would better define the range of CPA services for the public. These are summarized in Table 2 (on page 22).

The percentage of respondents agreeing that an additional credential would better define for the public the extent of services currently provided by CPAs ranged from a low of 15.4 percent to a high of 32.6 percent. This is in sharp contrast to the responses to a question that asked: “Do you think an educational advertising campaign on the CPA profession would better enable CPAs to be perceived as providers of services beyond tax, accounting, and auditing?” A healthy majority (76.2 percent) of the respondents (consistent across subgroups) answered “yes” to this question.

Conclusions