Welcome to the debate. Today, we're turning our
attention to, well, a massive and often sort
of invisible engine within the academic world.
We're talking about continuing education. Now,
in the United States and Canada, this isn't just
about, you know, a hobbyist pottery class. We're
talking about the whole ecosystem of learning
that happens after your initial schooling. It's
workforce training, executive certificates, even
degree credit courses for nontraditional students.
It is a multibillion -dollar sector. It really
is. It's ubiquitous, but it's also sitting right
in the middle of a massive identity crisis. And
I think the central question we're wrestling
with today is really about structure versus soul.
The core tension is this. Should continuing education
be fully integrated into the life and faculty
of a university to make sure it maintains academic
rigor? Or does it function best as a distinct,
flexible extension, a separate arm designed to
be responsive to the market? And the stakes are
incredibly high here. The World Bank noted back
in 2019 that flexible learning is absolutely
vital for labor markets adjusting to the, quote,
future of work. But my argument is that because
this is so vital, we can't afford to sideline
it. I'm here to argue that continuing education
has to be brought into the institutional fold,
fully integrated, to stop it from becoming a
second -tier operation. It needs to feed into
and benefit from the mainstream. And I come at
this from a completely different angle. I believe
that the extension school model, where the division
is separate and distinct from the main faculty,
is not only historically valid, but frankly,
absolutely necessary. If you shackle these programs
to the slow -moving machinery of a traditional
university, you kill the very responsiveness
that working adults need. You need a speedboat,
not an ocean liner. I see the utility in the
speedboat analogy, but I do worry about what
happens to the cargo. So let's lay out the positions.
To me, for continuing education to be given,
you know, due recognition, It just can't be treated
as a side hustle. And I'm leaning heavily here
on the argument from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, the OECD. They argued
that it should be, and I'm quoting here, fully
integrated into institutional life rather than
being often regarded as a separate and distinctive
operation employing different staff. That sounds,
I don't know, a very idealized, almost bureaucratic
way of looking at it. I'd call it a principled
way. The OECD's point is that integration is
the only way for these programs to actually feed
into mainstream academic life. When universities
treat this as a separate silo, it inevitably
becomes a cash cow. It's a revenue tool to support
the real academic enterprise without the full
oversight of the core faculty. And that creates
a caste system. You've got real degrees and then
you have continuing studies. If we want to honor
the learner, we have to offer them the full weight
of the institution, not some franchise operation.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. Let me tell
you why. The non -traditional student, we're
talking about the working parent, the mid -career
professional, they require a non -traditional
structure. You talk about the weight of the institution,
but sometimes that weight is just dead weight.
I mean, look at Georgetown University, Michigan
State, the University of Denver. They have all
explicitly used non -credit programs to build
partnerships with corporations and government
agencies. That requires a level of agility that,
I don't know, a traditional anthropology department
just doesn't have. But are those partnerships
academic or are they just transactional? That's
the real question. They're responsive and they
provide access. Look, look at the University
of Florida. In 1976, they created a specific
Division of Continuing Education. Why? Because
they had to offer courses on evenings and weekends.
Traditional departments, they often resist those
hours. They want to teach at 10 a .m. on a Tuesday.
A separate division has a distinct mission. I
mean, think about the Chautauqua Institution,
founded way back in 1874. It started as an educational
experiment in out -of -school vacation learning.
It succeeded because it wasn't trying to be a
traditional university. Separation allows for
that. That is an interesting point, though. I
would frame it differently. You bring up history,
and I think looking at the origins of these programs
actually strengthens the argument for integration,
for institutional dignity, not separation. How
so? I mean, the history of extension is literally
the history of extending out away from the center.
Not always. If we look at the British models,
which really set a global standard for prestige,
we see a deep institutional commitment. Oxford
University established its Department for Continuing
Education in 1878. Cambridge's goes back to 1873.
These weren't some rogue operations. They were
attempts to bring the rigor of Oxford and Cambridge
to a broader public. They were integrated into
the identity of the place. Okay, but they were
still distinct departments. Departments, yes,
but within the university. And let's look at
the American context, specifically Cornell. In
the 1870s, they began offering university -based
continuing education. The Cornell era from 1877
mentions a tour of the Great Lakes. Now, this
wasn't some travel agency run by an administrator.
It was under the direction of Professor Theodore
Comstock, the head of Cornell's Department of
Geology. That is the integration model. The subject
matter expert, the core faculty, is leading the
charge. When you separate the administration
from the faculty, you lose that direct line.
You get a facilitator instead of a scholar. That's
a compelling case. But have you considered the
counter -history right there in the Ivy League?
Look at Harvard. Their origins in this go back
to 1835 with the Lowell Institute. It had a specific
mission, free public lectures in Boston. It wasn't
about getting students onto the Harvard campus.
It was about getting knowledge out to the city.
But eventually Harvard did take it over. Exactly.
But look at how they took it over. In 1910, President
A. Lawrence Lowell, who was also a trustee of
the Institute, formally established the Harvard
Extension School. And it has operated continuously
since 1910, precisely because it had that specific
distinct commission. Yes, it's one of Harvard's
degree -granting schools, but it functions with
an autonomy that allows it to serve a completely
different demographic than Harvard College. If
Lowell had tried to force those lectures into
the standard undergraduate curriculum of 1910,
the faculty would have strangled it in the crib.
Separation was the shield that let it survive.
I'm not convinced because that assumes the standard
curriculum is incapable of evolving. And if we
keep treating adult learners as this group that
needs to be shielded from the core standards,
we risk patronizing them. And this brings me
to a modern issue with this separation that I
find, well, deeply troubling. The metrics we
use. Specifically, the rise of the CEU, the Continuing
Education Unit. Now we're getting into the weeds,
but this is important. What's your objection
to the CEU? It's a standard measure. It's a standard
of time, not intellect. The standard from the
International Association for Continuing Education
and Training is that 10 contact hours equals
one CEU. It is purely a measure of time served.
It documents you attended a seminar. Compare
that to a traditional degree where you're graded
on synthesis, on argument, on research. The CEU,
it just commodifies learning into these neat
little time blocks. It turns education into a
punch card system. This is what happens when
you separate continuing ed from the academic
core. You get administrative metrics instead
of academic ones. I just, I see it so differently.
I view the CEU not as a punch card. but as a
vital currency for professional safety and competence.
You're looking at this like a philosopher. I'm
looking at it like a patient. Licensing bodies
in fields like healthcare and teaching, they
impose these requirements for a reason. They
need a quantifiable way to ensure that a nurse
or a psychologist stays up to date. But does
sitting in a chair for 10 hours guarantee they're
up to date? It guarantees exposure to new developments,
which is more than no requirement at all. Look
at the American Psychological Association. They
accredit sponsors and use a CE credit system.
If a psychologist needs to learn about a new
treatment for PTSD, they can't wait for a university
to approve a new three -credit graduate seminar
that meets for 16 weeks. That credit hour system
is just too slow, too cumbersome. The CEU and
the structures that deliver it allow for the
rapid deployment of knowledge. We're talking
about professional development, not a dissertation.
I grant you the speed. But when we prioritize
speed and contact hours over rigorous assessment,
we risk creating a system where professionals
are just checking boxes, not genuinely engaging.
And this connects directly to the economic reality.
You argued earlier that separation allows for
market responsiveness. But the evidence suggests
that market dependence can actually backfire
on the students we're trying to help. Backfire.
How so? Well, consider the Edutenture study from
the spring of 2009. This was right in the teeth
of the Great Recession. They surveyed about 1
,500 adults, and nearly half of them believed
the value of education had risen because of the
recession. They knew they needed new skills,
but over two -thirds said the economy had negatively
affected their plans to actually enroll. Right,
because they couldn't afford it. Precisely. When
continuing education is a separate, revenue -dependent
extension school, It has to charge what the market
will bear. It has to pay its own way. In a downturn,
exactly when people need retraining the most,
the price becomes a barrier. If these programs
were fully integrated, subsidized by the endowment,
by the broader university budget, just like the
history department is, the university could afford
to support these learners. By separating them,
we leave them to the mercy of the market. That's
a noble thought, but I think it misreads the
structural agility you need to solve the You
mentioned the World Bank. Let's look at their
2019 report. They explicitly say retraining and
retooling are the priority. That requires a scale
and a type of teaching that traditional universities
are, frankly, bad at. You think the university
is incapable of retraining? I think it's ill
-suited for it. Look at Empire State College,
part of SUNY. It was founded in 1969. the first
institution in the U .S. to focus exclusively
on adult learners. The whole institution was
built for this purpose because they didn't have
to deal with the traditional undergraduate machinery.
Dorms, sports teams, rigid semesters, they could
innovate. But Empire State College is the institution.
It's a degree -granting institution within a
system. That's different from a university treating
its continuing ed division as some kind of cash
-generating appendage. The principle stands,
though. Specialized structures serve specialized
needs. The World Bank is talking about flexible
learning, short courses, online modules, competency
-based learning. If you try to run those through
the same faculty committees that oversee the
classics PhD, you will never get them approved
in time to be relevant. The mainstream programs
the OECD talks about are often years behind industry.
I see why you'd think that. But I worry that
without that oversight, retraining just becomes
vocational rather than intellectual. If we sever
the link between the job skill and the deeper
theoretical framework, which is what the core
faculty provides, we're training technicians,
not citizens. The university's role is not just
to update software skills, it's to cultivate
the mind. If continuing ed is just a skills factory,
it doesn't belong in a university at all. It
belongs in a corporate training center. And I'd
argue that intellectual charity means seeing
that vocational training is intellectual for
the person whose livelihood depends on it. We
shouldn't look down on it. But we're reaching
the end of our time, and the divide is still
clear. It is. So let me just summarize my position.
I believe the soul of lifelong learning must
reside in the heart of the university, not in
an annex. The OACD is correct. It must not be
a separate and distinctive operation if it's
going to be respected. The university's greatest
asset is its faculty. excluding adult learners
from that core life, offering them a separate
menu of contact hours instead of deep engagement,
it serves neither the student nor the institution.
It dilutes the brand. And I still maintain that
the best ideas and the best service to the public
come from structures built for purpose. The whole
Wisconsin idea from 1907 was driven by extension,
by going out. Whether it's Chautauqua's vacation
learning or modern online education, the distinct
nature of adult learning requires a dedicated,
specialized delivery system, a system that can
move faster than an academic senate and offer
the flexibility a working nurse or a parent actually
needs. It is worth noting, though, that as distance
and online education really come to dominate,
the physical distinction between campus and extension
is... Well, it's blurring. That is true. The
method of delivery, video, online modules, that's
becoming the norm for everyone, not just the
non -traditional student. So perhaps in the future,
the integration I'm looking for and the flexibility
you champion will merge, simply because the walls
of the classroom are dissolving. A hopeful thought.
Whether it's integrated or separate, the core
goal remains the same, accommodating the student
in the world where education no longer ends at
graduation. Indeed. Thank you for joining us
for this discussion on the structure of knowledge.