How Can We Ensure the Quality of Certificate Programs?
Wayne Patterson
Senior Fellow, Howard
University
There
has been a remarkable growth in the numbers and kinds of certificate programs
that are offered throughout the land. Certificate programs that consist of
for-credit courses, and whose credits carry over to degree programs, are the
subject of enormous growth in higher education.
In the first
study I conducted on certificate programs [1], I was able to identify about
forty universities that had certificate programs at the graduate level. In my
current study, only four years later, there are well over four hundred
universities so identified [2].
It is also
interesting that graduate or postbaccalaureate certificate programs are being
conducted in virtually every discipline, with many in business, education,
health sciences or information science. But there are also significant numbers
of certificate programs in the humanities and the arts.
Certificate
programs play an important role for the postbaccalaureate student in permitting
a “modular” path to graduate study that may seem less intimidating to the
entering student.
There is also
some information now that indicates that the opportunity to enroll in a
certificate program before continuing on to a graduate degree makes graduate
education more accessible to older students who have been away from higher
education, or students from traditionally underrepresented groups in graduate
school.
Until
now, it has not been possible to document the extent of the certificate program
movement. However, in [2] I have documented over 2,500 certificate programs at
over 400 universities. A subset of these, or approximately 103, have reported
enrollments of 11,757. Thus it seems to be a reasonable projection that more
students will receive graduate certificates this year than the approximately
40,000 students who will receive doctoral degrees in the United States.
In
many respects, graduate-level certificate programs are -- or should be --
similar to graduate degree programs, and therefore approaches to measuring
quality should be similar to the process of measuring the quality of degree
programs.
A
contemporary view of the evaluation or assessment of academic programs is that
we should be concerned not only with measuring inputs, but also outcomes.
The experience gained in the academy is much more comprehensive in the former.
After all, we have used such indicators for many years. The latter approach is
still in stages of infancy. It should therefore not be surprising that a good
deal more can be said about the input indicators than with outcomes.
It
seems clear that we are operating in an environment of some confusion in the
provision of these new types of programs: confusion arises in their level,
their requirements for admission, their completion requirements, their relation
to degrees, and we could go on. Indeed, perhaps foremost, confusion arises in
the nomenclature used for such programs.
Furthermore,
even if we agreed on what constituted some measure of standardization on the
practice in certificate programs (and their equivalents by another name), we
would have not yet defined any measures of quality by which we could analyze
these programs.
Part
of the confusion in defining standards for certificate programs come from a
confusion in what we mean when we refer to a “certificate program.”
What
are certificate programs? First, let us understand that any good definition
will encompass programs, which operate throughout the land under many different
names. There are certificates, diplomas, PDPs, COGS and CAGS, and a few others
to boot. Generally speaking, we will refer to relatively short-term academic
programs, which may lead to a degree but do not constitute a degree, and are
usually focussed in a certain specialization in a discipline or across
disciplinary lines. The components of a certificate program may carry graduate
credit, undergraduate credit, or no academic credit.
As
a provisional taxonomy for certificate programs, the following terms are
proposed:
Graduate certificate programs: A graduate certificate program is one that (a)
requires that the student have a bachelor’s degree prior to entry into the
program; (b) that the content of the program be at the graduate level and may
require prior undergraduate course content as a prerequisite; and (c) the
program is also related to a graduate degree.
Postbaccalaureate certificate
programs: A postbaccalaureate
certificate program is one that (a) requires that the student have a bachelor’s
degree prior to entry into the program; (b) that the content of the program be
at the graduate level but may not require specific undergraduate course content
as a prerequisite; and (c) the program may or may not be related to a graduate
degree.
Post-master’s certificate programs: Normally considered a subset of graduate
certificate programs. A post-master’s certificate program is one that (a)
requires that the student have a master’s degree prior to entry into the
program; (b) that the content of the program be at the post-master’s level and
may require prior master’s course content as a prerequisite; and (c) the
program is also related to a graduate degree.
Post-doctoral certificate programs: There is a small set of programs that require a
doctoral degree for admission.
Professional certificate programs: A professional certificate program is one that
(a) may or may not require that the student have a bachelor’s degree prior to
entry into the program; (b) be linked to a specific professional requirement or
certification so that completion of the program may either provide the student
with the requisite professional certification or provide the student with the
opportunity to apply or compete for the requisite certification; and (c) the
program may or may not be related to a graduate degree.
Undergraduate certificate programs: An undergraduate certificate program is one that
(a) requires that the student be eligible as an undergraduate student in order
to enter the program; (b) that the content of the program be at the
undergraduate level and may require prior undergraduate course content as a
prerequisite; and (c) the program is also related to an undergraduate degree.
Not for credit certificate programs: A not for credit certificate program is one that
(a) may not require that the student be admissible either as an undergraduate
or a graduate student; (b) the content of the program may be at any level but
university credit is not associated with the program; and (c) the program is
not related to any degree.
There
may well be other categories of certificate programs to consider, but for now
we will stick with these. It is, however, the case that many individual
programs may meet the definition of more than one of these categories. For
example, a university may wish to call a program
“postbaccalaureate/undergraduate,” or “graduate/professional,” or
“undergraduate/not for credit.”
In thinking of program
standards, it may be helpful to divide issues into subcategories --- at least
to tackle a smaller set of issues in each subtopic. For this, let us consider:
a. Governance
issues
b. Management issues
c. Curriculum issues
d. Faculty issues
e. Student issues
f. Fiscal issues
In
each of these subcategories, I will put forth several issues on which there is
typically not unanimity of opinion,
and on which some discussion may lead us closer to a consensus on standards.
With
the seven types of certificate program identified above, it is possible to
articulate standards for each category. It is the author’s intent to attempt
such descriptions in the future. However, in large part because of prior
research [1], [3], [4] on best practices in graduate and post-baccalaureate
certificates, the primary focus will be on these categories, with secondary
references as appropriate to all other categories.
It
should also be noted that one could consider all of the traditional input
measures: quality of the faculty, admission levels of the students, completion
rates, and so on. In this paper we will focus primarily on those criteria,
which differ from criteria used in consideration of a degree program.
a.
Governance Issues
Shared Leadership: If we accept the assumption
that the development of certificate programs is indeed an activity that
universities should consider undertaking, we should also consider whether these
additional responsibilities fit with the mission of the graduate school and the
continuing education school, or other academic units.
It is often the
case that the advantage that the graduate school has is a level of quality
assurance to the public. The end product of our doctoral and master’s education
is widely regarded in society, and it is generally understood that this has
been the mission of the graduate school of the university. It will not be
difficult to demonstrate to the public that this concern for quality that
pervades the graduate community will be maintained if it is also responsible
for graduate certificate programs.
On the other
hand, where graduate school has traditionally been perceived as less capable is
in its ability to market programs, to develop programs, to deliver them in a
service-oriented manner. Professionals in the field of continuing education
typically provide examples of a much greater “consumer awareness” regarding the
university’s offerings.
The argument
has been made in [5] that a shared leadership model may exemplify the greatest
commitment to quality.
State
Regulation: State-supported universities, and even private universities in certain
states, need to be cognizant of state-level requirements for the approval and
review of graduate certificate programs. In some cases, the state requirements
may not be well understood by any of the participants in the process.
A common
complaint from industry with respect to universities’ responsiveness to these
needs is that we are unwilling or unable to respond quickly to opportunities
for changes in curricula and programming.
Few in public
universities would challenge the statement that the normal process of approval
for degree programs is at least a two-year cycle.
For certificate
programs, where it may often be the case that all of the courses that
constitute the program are already approved by the normal curriculum approval
process, and may form part of an approved degree program, it seems excessive
that a cycle as long as two years should be required.
There is an
indication that approximately one-half of the state higher education
commissions do not require approval of certificate programs. For more concrete
examples, several states, including Ohio and South Carolina, have decided no
longer to regulate most graduate certificate programs. They have used the
arguments in [4] in making this decision.
In particular,
state coordinating agencies for higher education may wish to consider the
following language of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education [6]:
“Certificates offered by senior institutions
that total 18 or fewer credit hours in a field or major for which the
institution is not approved or certificates of any duration that are offered in
a field or major for which the institution is already approved do not require
Commission approval.”
Thus, with rare
exceptions, as demonstrated in the South Carolina policy, there is no compelling
state interest in separate regulation of certificate programs.
Review of
graduate certificate programs is also required by many state higher education
agencies. This would seem appropriate, especially if the organization of
program review is linked to the review of all programs in a discipline or set
of disciplines. In such cases, including the certificate program review as a
component of the full review process would seem appropriate.
Approval Process: Internally to the university, there are many different
routes for the approval of a graduate certificate program. In almost every case
surveyed, the graduate council or comparable body must approve the program.
However, it is often the case that the individual academic unit, the deans’
council, academic affairs, the faculty senate and/or the institution’s board of
trustees will also examine the proposal for approval.
It is also taken for granted that the origination
of any such proposal will be with the affected faculty, that is the department
or departments that will be offering the program, and that their approval is
first and foremost.
One measure of program quality will be the
presence of a clearly defined internal process (which is observed in practice)
for the certificate program.
b.
Management Issues
Part of the philosophy
underlying the adoption of certificate programs is the university’s willingness
to be flexible in response to a changing educational environment. Thus, a
demonstration of quality in the management of a certificate program might be an
indicator that measures the institution’s flexibility or suppleness in
establishing such programs.
Free-Standing or Add-On: A “free-standing” graduate
certificate, by definition, is one that exists in a discipline, or area of
study, in which the university does not offer a related master’s or doctoral
degree. As a contrast, a certificate program offered in a discipline where such
a related degree is offered is termed an “add-on” certificate program.
One may argue that the most
appropriate role for a graduate certificate program is in an area in which the
graduate school and the graduate faculty have a well-defined curriculum, such
as would result if the certificate program were an “add-on.” However, although
it may be the case that the curriculum for the certificate program could be
more be easily developed if the courses already formed part of the graduate
curriculum, one would also have to be concerned about two phenomena:
First, if the certificate
program is being designed to meet a specific need in the community which the
university serves, will there be a tendency to shape the program to fit the
existing curriculum, in which case will the demand be truly satisfied? Second,
the university must consider, at least, the argument that the certificate
program may replace a related degree program. In the words of Bianca Bernstein
of Arizona State, “we want to actively discourage the possibility that students
would use a short certificate program as a substitute for a full degree
program.”
In addition to these
considerations, the development of free-standing programs may also have
benefits for the institution. For example, there could be a number of cases
where the department or discipline has not offered a graduate degree, and may
not have the resources to do so; but a graduate certificate in the discipline
may be a way of developing the department’s capability to offer a full degree
program. In addition, the development of a graduate certificate program may be
a way of “testing the market” for graduate education in the discipline.
A measure of the
institution’s flexibility could be the willingness to adopt both free-standing
or add-on programs. In the survey conducted in [3], 77.8% of respondents
indicated that they have both free-standing and add-on programs. In the balance
of this text, references to the survey, conducted with members of the Council
of Graduate Schools and reported in [3], will be described as the “CGS Survey.”
Interdisciplinary Programs: Interdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary programs seem to be growing in number and kind, as the need
grows for critical thinking that may benefit from preparation in several
disciplines.
It is often the
case in academe that it is difficult to develop programs involving different
disciplinary units. One train of thought holds that the development process for
graduate certificate programs should be simpler than the development of
multidisciplinary degree programs. Others would make the point that single
discipline graduate certificate programs will be simpler to administer. The CGS
Survey reported that 65.5% of institutions have interdisciplinary certificate
programs.
Time Limits: Universities have become
concerned about the proliferation of programs. Many administrators will look
for programs to eliminate when new programs are introduced. Consequently, it
may be worthwhile when considering implementing graduate certificate programs
to project the need for the program into the future, and also to consider the
method for terminating the program when it no longer serves a purpose.
One method for
ensuring that a graduate certificate program will not outlive its usefulness
could be to build a sunset clause
into its creation. A sunset clause is an automatic provision for the
termination of a program after a fixed period of time, unless a specific
justification is made at that time for its continuation.
Although the
existence of a sunset clause may be an important indicator of the flexibility
of a certificate program, 89.3% of CGS Survey respondents report no such clause
in their programs.
Fast-Track: Again addressing the
concerns of responsiveness, the university may consider a fast-track process for the approval of the graduate certificate
program. Fast-tracking may be appropriate, for example, if the proposed
graduate certificate program meets certain criteria, such as:
a.
no new courses in the curriculum;
b.
no new faculty required;
c.
admissions process following accepted practice;
d.
completion requirements also following accepted practice.
In such cases,
the approval bodies, under fast-tracking, would be expected to act on the
program proposal within a given time limit, say ninety days. Approximately
one-third of CGS Survey respondents report a fast-track policy.
c.
Curriculum Issues
Credit Hours: The duration of
a certificate program could be one of the principal distinctions between this
type of program and a master’s or doctoral degree program. There seems to be a
general understanding that certificate programs in general should be of shorter
duration, and concentrated more on a specialization, than a comparable degree
program. Within this definition, there has nonetheless been a very wide range
of offerings, with credit hour requirements ranging from 6 semester hours to 60
semester hours! The average number of credit hours reported in the CGS Survey
is 17.0. The author in [7] has reported on merged data from the CGS Survey and
a similar survey of University Continuing Education Association members. These
results will be referred to in the following as the “Combined Survey.” The
comparable result from the Combined Survey is 17.7 semester credit hours.
In some cases, the number of
credit hours or courses is the result of practice in a certain profession. For
example, there are a number of Family Nurse Practitioner programs that have
been developed as certificate programs at the Post-Master’s level. The student,
in order to become a Family Nurse Practitioner, first completes a master’s in
nursing, and then takes an additional number of credits required to be recognized
professionally as a Family Nurse Practitioner; the additional credits courses
are packaged to constitute the Family Nurse Practitioner Certificate program.
Another candidate for this
type of program could be in accounting, where the governing professional body
has required 150 hours of coursework to enter the accounting profession. A
number of universities may choose to satisfy the additional post-baccalaureate
requirements with a certificate program.
As a potential rule of
thumb, it would seem reasonable to examine carefully whether a certificate
program should require more than half of the number of credits required in some
related degree program.
Thus, in what might be a
common measure, the credit hours for a certificate program that might be linked
to a Master’s program could range from 12-18 hours.
Other Programs: Certificate programs, as is
well known, are not only offered at the graduate level, but also at the
undergraduate, and professional level, and may also be offered without
reference to credit at all.
However, in terms of the
multiplicity of needs for post-baccalaureate education that universities and
other organizations are trying to meet, these other forms of certificate
programs may play just as important a role as does the graduate certificate
program. Many would perhaps be of the opinion that undergraduate or non-credit
certificate programs are even more important in terms of the overall demand,
workforce development requirements, and general need in society.
There is also considerable
evidence that these other types of certificate programs also appeal to persons
who hold advanced degrees. Many two-year institutions now report that a
significant number of their students in certificate programs hold a bachelor’s
or higher degree on entry.
A question to ponder is the
relationship between such programs and the graduate certificate programs that
have been discussed extensively here. Should there be a clear demarcation
between all of these types of programs? Should there be a path that leads a
student from one type of program to another, an articulation for example
between undergraduate certificate programs and graduate certificate programs in
the same field?
Distance Learning: Most graduate certificate
programs are not delivered using a distance education approach. However, many
respondents to the CGS Survey indicated that they are currently considering
offering graduate certificate programs in a distance learning mode. 45.5% of
respondents to the CGS Survey, and 58.5% of the respondents to the Combined
Survey, report no distance certificate programs.
Among distance
learning modalities currently in use in graduate certificate programs, it seems
that web-based approaches are growing in number, and this approach may well
become the predominant distance learning approach for graduate certificate
programs.
A relatively
recent survey of distance learning graduate programs summarizes a number of
certificate programs as well as degree programs offered in a distance format
[8]. It is of note that the predominant approach to distance learning for
certificate programs in this survey was mailed videotapes. It should also be
noted that the authors used subjective criteria in determining the “best
programs.”
Another source
of information on some distance learning graduate certificate programs is [9].
An electronic source is the website http://certificates.gradschools.com.
One document [10] that has
attempted to develop criteria for the evaluation of certificate programs is
entitled, Best
Practices For Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, a study conducted by
the eight regional accrediting bodies with the assistance of the Western Cooperative for Educational
Telecommunications. As insightful as this document is, it is of little help in answering any questions
regarding best practices for distance-based certificate programs, as the only
appearance of the word certificate in the study is when is paired with the word
degree. In other words, a typical draft guideline for best practice would read,
“in designing an electronically
offered degree or certificate program, the institution provides …” [9], page 7.
d.
Faculty Issues
Applying External Credit: Should the
university allow credits to be transferred to the graduate certificate program,
either from within or without the university? Or should the student only be
allowed to take courses leading to the graduate certificate once she or he has
been admitted to the program?
Generally
speaking, universities allow transfer credit for graduate certificate programs.
One rule of thumb has been to fix the amount of transfer credit to the
percentage allowed for transfer into a master’s program. In other words, a
university that allowed 12 hours of transfer to its 36-hour master’s program
might consider allowing 33% of the credit for the graduate certificate to be
transferred in, say, 6 hours of an 18-hour program.
It should be
recognized, as more and more graduate education is delivered via a distance
format, and with national and international clearinghouses for distance
education courses such as the Southern Regional Electronic Campus, and Western
Governors University, that the notion of transfer credit may change radically
or disappear. The CGS Survey reports that 75.8% of institutions allow external
credit.
Completion Requirements: On what level should certificate students be
expected to demonstrate achievement in their programs? From the CGS Survey,
most universities apply the same standards for certificate completion as for
degree completion, at least with respect to course grading scale and grade
point average. Few universities have a seminal requirement such as a capstone
seminar, or a comprehensive examination in a graduate certificate program. It
should be noted that this is not always the case in degree programs either. 81.6% of CGS Survey respondents and 64.6% of
Combined Survey respondents have the same completion requirements for
certificate or degree programs.
A reasonable approach would seem to be the
requirement of the same grade point standards to remain in good academic
standing in the program, and also to ensure program completion. A commonly used
standard is the maintenance of a 3.0 grade point average, on the 4.0 scale.
Adjunct Faculty: The growing number of adjuncts and other part-time
faculty has been an issue of some concern to universities in many contexts. The
question has also been raised as to whether graduate certificate programs have
involved a greater number of adjunct or part-time faculty than other university
programs. Evidence at this point seems to indicate that there is little
difference in the practice of universities in using part-time or adjunct
faculty in certificate programs as compared to degree programs.
Commencement Ceremonies: Should
students completing a graduate certificate program have a commencement? Or
should they participate in the university’s regular (graduate) commencement.
There seem to be numerous models in place:
a.
No commencement ceremony for certificate recipients.
b.
A separate ceremony only for certificate recipients.
c.
Certificate students recognized in the university’s awards ceremony.
d.
Certificate students march in regular commencement ceremony.
e.
Certificate students march in the graduate commencement ceremony.
e.
Student Issues
Transcripting: This is an
issue that may not seem to deans and faculty to be of paramount importance, but
to students this could stand as one of the most important policy issues
regarding such programs.
At the root of the issue is
the question of the extent to which the university is prepared to stand by its
graduate certificate programs. Students have indicated that, even though the
coursework in a graduate certificate program merits graduate credit, the
indication on the student’s official transcript of the completion of the certificate program is of paramount importance.
The reasons given have been partially a desire to have the university give
greater recognition to the certificate, and partially (indeed more so) a need
felt by the students to be able to demonstrate the achievement to an employer
or a potential employer.
The arguments against the
specific indication on a transcript of the program’s completion have to do with
the difficulty, in some student information systems, of incorporating this
information. In many cases, it would be necessary for special coding to be done
in the system; in others, it may be necessary for this information to be
manually entered.
One must balance the costs
of performing this modification to whatever system produces the transcript against
the value to the institution of satisfying the student’s desire to have the
university’s official transcript recognize this achievement. The CGS Survey and the Combined Survey
indicate that about half the respondents recognize the completion of a program
on the official transcript.
Admissions Requirements: The responses to this
question in the CGS Survey indicate a high degree of variation in our views on
who is admissible to graduate certificate programs. The responses vary from no
requirements whatsoever to a requirement that the certificate students be
already enrolled in one of the institution’s master’s or doctoral programs.
On the
assumption that the university wishes to ensure that the graduate certificate
program operates at a level that represents the quality of the graduate school
and its offerings, the question of admissions requirements needs to be
addressed. There are a number of graduate certificate programs that have either
no requirements or only the completion of the certificate programs as well.
Both of these approaches are problematic.
In order to
gain acceptability with the university community, a graduate certificate
program should represent the graduate-level offerings of the institution. If
there are either no requirements or only the evidence of a prior degree, it is
unlikely that the program will be held in respect by the graduate faculty and
administration as a graduate-level program.
Why are
graduate certificate programs of interest to universities? In large part, the
interest has been driven by the marketplace. Potential students, companies,
government agencies, and professional societies have indicated the need for
shorter-term, specialized graduate programs such as graduate certificate
programs.
The Boeing
Corporation is one which has aggressively urged the development of graduate
certificate programs at numerous universities. Indeed, this model of
industry-university cooperation is worthy of note.
Some at Boeing
have expressed frustration that a lengthy admissions process, including
measures such as the GRE, becomes self-defeating if the purpose of the graduate
certificate program is a short-term specialized program emphasis.
A reasonable
solution in many cases would seem to be a category of graduate school admission
that has been termed in this document “graduate admission with qualifications.”
In different institutions, different names are given to this category ---
non-degree status, probationary admission, and so on. If there is any
commonality to these categories, it is that the GRE or related requirement is
waived or deferred, and the grade point requirement may not be the same as for
regular admission; on the other hand, references or professional experience may
be given more consideration than with regular admission.
Actual practice
in the community varies considerably. In the CGS Survey, 23.8% of respondents
use the Bachelor’s degree as the admissions requirement; 20.6% require full
graduate student admission; and 31.7% use the “graduate admissions with qualifications.”
In the Combined Survey, these figures are 36.4%, 14.7%, and 17.9% respectively.
Time Limits: Is it important or relevant
to have time limits for student to complete graduate certificate programs? Most
institutions seem to have some time limits, just as we also do for master’s and
doctoral programs. However, there is no consistency in the length of the
limiting period.
The argument
could be made that, given the short-term nature of the graduate certificate
program, that if the program is not completed in a relatively short term, that
the value of the graduate certificate to the student may have waned. On the
other hand, in the spirit of improve accessibility of graduate programs to
students, a longer time frame may be desirable -- or, alternatively, a shorter
term, but a very flexible process for extension of the time limit.
It might also
be noted that any time limit should take note of the duration of the
certificate program. For example, five years is not an uncommon limit for
master’s programs. Many master’s programs carry 30 credits --- a five-year
limit would represent two three-hour courses per year. If this philosophy were
adopted for a 12-hour graduate certificate program, one might be inclined to
set a two-year limit for completion.
f.
Fiscal Issues
Tuition
Levels: The question of
tuition for certificate programs is often bound together with other issues of
governance and fiscal management. In many institutions, the authority for
establishing a tuition rate is far removed from the authority to establish the
graduate certificate program. 96.2% of
respondents in the CGS Survey and 77.9%
in the Combined Survey report using the same tuition rate as for degree
programs.
In
some states, only the trustees of public institutions can set tuition rates; in
other states and at certain times, a state legislature may limit the ability of
an institution to raise tuition levels.
Fiscal Arrangements: By and large, universities have addressed the
fiscal issues in the same way they do degree programs. In other words, where
does the revenue go, and who or what unit is responsible for the expenditures?
With the majority of survey respondents, revenues and expenditures are treated
in the same way as degree programs (revenue to general fund, expenditures from
unit offering the program).
Administering units may wish to seek different
fiscal arrangements for graduate certificate programs. An issue to be explored
is whether or not the graduate certificate program can be administered on the
same fiscal basis as is usually accorded to other continuing education
programs: that is, that the administering unit is responsible for all
expenditures, but also is allowed to retain the revenues for the graduate
certificate program.
At least in some states, the continuing education
colleges of the state-supported institutions also have a unique fiscal
structure --- their activities are considered “auxiliary services.” The
auxiliary services category is also accorded to units such as the bookstore,
the athletics, department, and so on. In particular, being placed in this
category means that the unit is often exempted from some state requirements,
such as year-end closeout (with no carry-over funds), and state agency
purchasing and travel regulations.
The areas described above provide many areas for
the elaborate of criteria for measuring the quality of certificate programs. As
stated above, these are all what may be termed input measures.
Output Measures
On
this topic, experience in practice is minimal at best. A very useful step has
been taken at Northeastern University. Gretchen Ayoub, the Coordinator of Academic Administrative Services, University
College, Northeastern University, reports in [10]:
“ Last Winter, we sent out a survey to students who had
completed certificates through University College (credit) and Continuing
Education programs (non-credit). We received approximately 450 responses back -
about 38% of our total survey group. … The results were generally very
positive. Our respondents overall felt that the certificate they had completed
had helped them advance in their career and gave them good skills. These are
some of the other findings:
“When asked if the certificate helped them reach their primary
goal, 50% agreed and another 25% strongly agreed. These were the same numbers
we got when we asked if their certificate made them more marketable.
“About 40% of our certificate students already had Bachelor's
degrees, another 10% have Master's degrees, 10% have Associate's and another
20% have some colleges. While the certificate used to be seen more as an
entry-level tool, it is now more of an additional skill set for college
educated consumers.
“We asked our study participants if their course work was
relevant to their particular professional field. About 65% agreed and another
28% strongly agreed.
“One of our more intriguing findings was around the question of
what their goals were upon entering the program. The choices (they could circle
as many as applied) were Career Change, Salary Increase, Promotion, Personal
Development, Electives for Degree, Obtain Employment, and other. The largest choice by far was personal development -
71% chose this option. Career Changes were around 41%.”
Clearly
in order to develop a useful set of output measures, a much wider set of the
community of practitioners needs to gain experience in developing surveys and
data such as has been done at Northeastern.
Conclusions
Although
in many ways the analysis of certificate programs is still a very young field,
it is possible to define measures, both input and output, of the quality of
certificate programs, and it is hoped that universities will desire to use
these measures in ensuring that their programs become and remain high quality
offerings.
References
[1]
A Survey of Graduate
Certificate Policies, Procedures, and Programs, Wayne Patterson, University of
Charleston, 1997. www.cofc.edu/~wayne/gradcerts.html.
[2]
Program and Enrollment Trends in Certificate Programs, Wayne Patterson, to
appear.
[3]
Summarizing Data on Certificate
Programs, Wayne Patterson, Council of Graduate Schools, March 1999.
www.cgsnet.org/summary.pdf.
[4]
Analyzing Policies and
Procedures for Graduate Certificate Programs, Wayne Patterson, Council of
Graduate Schools, July 1999. www.cgsnet.org/pdf/analysis.html.
[5] A Model of Shared
Leadership for Graduate Certificate Programs, Wayne Patterson, University
Continuing Education Review, Fall 1999, pp. 69-80.
[6] South Carolina Commission
on Higher Education, Guidelines for New Academic Program Approval: Definitions,
Policies, and Procedures, September 1998, pp. 4,7.
[7] Combined CGS and UCEA
Survey Results, Wayne Patterson, to appear.
[8] The Best Distance Learning Graduate Programs, Vicky Phillips and Cindy Yager, Princeton Review, 1998.
[9] Peterson’s Guide to Distance Learning Programs 1999. Peterson’s, Princeton, NJ, 1999.
[10] Best Practices For
Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, Western Cooperative for
Educational Telecommunications, 2001.
[11] Certificate News,
v.2 no. 2, Certificate Program Workshops, Inc., Washington, DC, March 2001, pp.
3-4.