How Can We Ensure the Quality of Certificate Programs?
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 , 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 .
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  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 , ,  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  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  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 :
“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 , 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 , 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  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 . 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 . An electronic source is the website http://certificates.gradschools.com.
One document  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 …” , 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.
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 :
“ 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.
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.
 A Survey of Graduate Certificate Policies, Procedures, and Programs, Wayne Patterson, University of Charleston, 1997. www.cofc.edu/~wayne/gradcerts.html.
 Program and Enrollment Trends in Certificate Programs, Wayne Patterson, to appear.
 Summarizing Data on Certificate Programs, Wayne Patterson, Council of Graduate Schools, March 1999. www.cgsnet.org/summary.pdf.
 Analyzing Policies and Procedures for Graduate Certificate Programs, Wayne Patterson, Council of Graduate Schools, July 1999. www.cgsnet.org/pdf/analysis.html.
 A Model of Shared Leadership for Graduate Certificate Programs, Wayne Patterson, University Continuing Education Review, Fall 1999, pp. 69-80.
 South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, Guidelines for New Academic Program Approval: Definitions, Policies, and Procedures, September 1998, pp. 4,7.
 Combined CGS and UCEA Survey Results, Wayne Patterson, to appear.
 The Best Distance Learning Graduate Programs, Vicky Phillips and Cindy Yager, Princeton Review, 1998.
 Peterson’s Guide to Distance Learning Programs 1999. Peterson’s, Princeton, NJ, 1999.
 Best Practices For Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, 2001.
 Certificate News, v.2 no. 2, Certificate Program Workshops, Inc., Washington, DC, March 2001, pp. 3-4.