The Australian Society of Accountants' Attempt to Introduce a Qualifying Examination in the Early 1970s: a Case of Form Over Substance

ABSTRACT

This paper adds to an historical understanding of the relation between professional practice and higher education by tracing the Australian Society of Accountant's (ASA) struggle to establish a qualifying examination as part of a new programme of professional accounting education in Australia. In 1970, when the ASA introduced a qualifying examination, which it had developed for candidates commencing their accounting courses in 1967, the higher education institutions protested against this action because it required graduates to sit for an examination which they claimed re-ran material already examined in their curricula. They argued that the ASA's proposal imposed on candidates an examination which was grounded neither in accounting practice nor in a common core of accounting knowledge which related to that practice: the form of the examination had taken many years to devise but it lacked substance. Then, in 1976, another type of qualifying examination was introduced. This programme of study emphasised practical applications of accounting and minimised formal academic procedures. It suffered the same fate as its predecessor. The resistance of the higher education institutions to the former and graduates to the latter assured the failure of the ASA's proposals because, at this point, the ASA lacked any strategies to ensure their cooperation.

Keywords:

• Professional accounting education
• accounting knowledge and skill
• accounting profession
• professional orientation

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. In particular, the author is grateful to the Editor for his support and encouragement in revising the paper.

Notes

1. The Report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia—The Martin Report 1964—proposed a binary system of higher education where separate institutions would be developed outside the university system (Australian Universities Commission, 1964). These were to operate as overtly vocational forms of higher education institutions with a different purpose and function from that of a university. The Martin Committee in Australia was far more limited in scope than the Robbins Committee in the UK; it had no independent status.

2. Although there are many countries around the world where membership of professional accountancy bodies is available only to graduates of university accounting degrees, this is not the case in the UK, where principal accountancy bodies have never seen ‘knowledge and skills acquisition in a university’ as an important step in their professionalisation projects.

3. Initially, the Qualifying Examination was to consist of separate examinations in four subjects of Accounting (two papers), Auditing (one paper), Company Law (one paper), and Income Taxation (one paper).

4. Present were L. A. Braddock, South Australian Institute of Technology (in the chair); L. J. Watts, Education Department Victoria; C. A. Hulls and J. F. Dyall, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; W. M. G. Hoskins, Queensland Institute of Technology; L. J. Hollis, Perth Technical College; A. T. Dunbar, Hobart Technical College; C. W. Andersen, General Registrar; K. A. Middleton, Education Officer.

5. The ICAA was viewed as primarily representing the views of accountants in public practice.

6. Initially the minutes refer to a Professional Orientation Programme and a Professional Orientation Year. In 1976, it was agreed to retain the name Professional Orientation Programme.