In his farewell tour, outgoing AICPA CEO Barry Melancon is defending the 150-hour rule. He claims the extra year of schooling has "elevated" the profession, creating smarter, savvier CPAs. But has it really?

MIT Sloan researchers found no measurable difference in CPA quality due to the fifth year. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Instead, the only impact has been a nosedive in the number of CPAs. Non-minority CPAs decreased by 14%, while some minority groups plummeted by a staggering 26%.

Here's the truth: Melancon's accomplishment was to grow the AICPA, not the profession. And boy, did he succeed. Under his watch, the AICPA has become a cash cow.

But at what cost?

CPA salaries have stagnated, while the AICPA actively works to keep those salaries low by promoting offshoring and automation. While big firms have become more profitable than ever, Individual CPAs are worse off than they were in 1980 when you adjust what they get paid for inflation.

Melancon dismisses the CPA decline as a COVID blip, but this trend has been brewing for over a decade. His legacy? The 300,000 people who jumped ship during his tenure.

Sure, he grew the AICPA. But it's been at the expense of the average accountant, making it harder than ever to attract fresh talent.

It's time for the AICPA to start prioritizing its members over its own growth. The 150-hour rule may have had its day, but that day has passed.

We need bold leaders willing to make tough changes to secure a thriving future for CPAs.

But hey, that's just my two cents. What do you think? Is the 150-hour rule helping or hurting the profession? Let me know in the comments. 👇

For more accounting news and analysis, subscribe to The Accounting Podcast, the most popular podcast for accountants in the world.