I tend to agree with Bob Elliott that a new identification is needed to move accountants to the next level, which may only mean a response to a changing world. It is clear that the CPA designation is limiting (not bad, but limiting). If Bob is right, and I think he largely is, we either respond up front now, or we get killed in five or ten years. As for the cognitor designation, Barry Melancon said no one would like whatever was chosen. I don't hate it, but it doesn't impress me (probably nothing new would). If someone has a better solution, I'd be willing to listen. I will say one thing about the AICPA: they seem to be the only accounting group/institution to recognize that we have to change to survive and are trying to do something about. I wish the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy understood that regulation is also going to have to change.
I tend to agree with Bob Elliott that a new identification is needed to move accountants to the next level, which may only mean a response to a changing world. It is clear that the CPA designation is limiting (not bad, but limiting). If Bob is right, and I think he largely is, we either respond up front now, or we get killed in five or ten years. As for the cognitor designation, Barry Melancon said no one would like whatever was chosen. I don't hate it, but it doesn't impress me (probably nothing new would). If someone has a better solution, I'd be willing to listen. I will say one thing about the AICPA: they seem to be the only accounting group/institution to recognize that we have to change to survive and are trying to do something about. I wish the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy understood that regulation is also going to have to change.