|
|
| by
Deloitte Forensic Center
|
| |
|
 Ratings
|
|
|
| Reviewed: |
Feb 17, 2010 by Business Editorial Board |
| Overview: |
In "A Discussion about University Fraud," Winter Wright interviews Ron Schwartz, principal, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP (Deloitte FAS), Matthew Larson, Deloitte FAS senior manager, and Mary-Jo Kranacher, editor-in-chief of The CPA Journal, the official publication of the New York State Society of certified public accountants, as they discuss how universities are as rife with scams as other organizations, and as much in need of adopting strong anti-fraud policies and procedures. Length: 56 minutes. (Video is also available on Google.com). In addition a link to a related article is provided. |
| Learning Goals: |
To provide students with a wider understanding of fraud detection, prevention, and investigation at universities. Specifically students will learn: 1) Why universities are susceptible to fraud. 2) What typical types of frauds tend to be perpetrated at universities. 3) How a fraud investigation is conducted. 4) How technology can be used to uncover fraud. 5) To identify best practices to prevent fraud. |
| Target Student Population: |
Upper-level forensic accounting course as well as other accounting courses that consider internal controls and fraud. University administrators and their internal audit staff. |
| Prerequisite Knowledge or Skills: |
Viewers need to have completed enough accounting or have practical experience to understand the full nature of the frauds described. An understanding of the two COSO internal control models and the fraud triangle would be helpful. |
| Type of Material: |
Panel presentation |
| Recommended Uses: |
Selected selections of the video would be useful for the students to view outside the classroom. This viewing could be tied to a series of questions that the students need to answer. Content is relevant to forensic accounting, accounting information systems, and auditing courses. |
| Technical Requirements: |
Web browser and high speed internet access. |
|
|
|
| Strengths: |
The panel provides an excellent summary of fraud detection, prevention, and investigation at universities in a concise and engaging manner. Information presented is accurate, current, and relevant given the proliferation of fraud that exists throughout the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Included in the discussion are examples of typical frauds perpetrated (purchase card, procurement, payroll, etc.), best practices to prevent fraud, and characteristics of an effective whistle blower hotline.
Of particular note are the discussions about how a fraud investigation is conducted and how technology is an integral tool in unraveling the fraud. Students may find it enlightening when a professional from practice informs the viewer that it is "impossible to truly delete anything from a computer!" |
| Concerns: |
One of the interviewees seems to talk more than the others. Would have liked to see more examples from the other interviewees. While the moderator provides excellent focus questions, the presentation ends rather abruptly without an effective final summary. A transcript of the panel presentation is not available. |
|
|
Potential Effectiveness as a Teaching Tool |
Rating:    |
|
| Strengths: |
This panel presentation links theory to practice. Through effective focus questioning, the moderator allows the discussants to builds on concepts progressively as well as demonstrate relationships among them. Educators and students could learn a lot in a short time. Developing assignments based on this panel presentation would also be easy to do. |
| Concerns: |
Instructors must keep in mind that this presentation was not designed as a teaching and learning tool. As a result learning objectives have to be derived by the instructor. Key terms are not identified, so student viewers would need the prerequisite knowledge identified previously. For example, a student with no knowledge of accounting or fraud, might not know what the phrase "misappropriation of assets" means. The moderator also does not provide the viewer with an outline of the content to be addressed. Instructor context in the form of questions or concept identification would be necessary to utilize this panel presentation effectively in the classroom or for homework. Entire video is a bit long to retain viewers interest. |
|
|
Ease of Use for Both Students and Faculty |
| Rating: |
|
| Strengths: |
Presentation is very informative, entertaining, and professionally orchestrated given the intended audience (professionals in practice). Panel participants possess excellent public speaking skills, using good tonal inflection to help retain the viewer's attention. Panel members and moderator were excellent! |
| Concerns: |
This module is not suitable for dial-up access viewing. Presentation is a bit long and if used should be shown in the classroom or viewed by students in recommended segments. Interactivity will need to be incorporated through post-viewing, classroom discussion lead by the instructor. |
|
|
