University Senate                                                                                  Proposed: April 26, 2002








WHEREAS,     the Education Committee has favorably reviewed a proposal from the Arts and Sciences to reconfigure the division of Continuing Education as the School of Continuing Education, authorized to confer the Master of Science degree, and


WHEREAS,     the Committee is satisfied that the proposal has been approved by the Executive Committee of the Arts and Sciences Faculty, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Executive Committee of Continuing Education, and


WHEREAS,     the proposal has been the subject of extensive consultations with deans of the existing schools, and has the endorsement both of the Vice President of Arts and Sciences, and of the Provost of the University, and


WHEREAS,     the proposal specifies that the new school will be authorized to confer the M.S. degree only in those applied professional fields not already engaged by the existing schools, and


WHEREAS,     the proposal specifies that a committee of representatives of the schools will be consulted before new degree programs are proposed by the School of Continuing Education, to ascertain whether the possibility of an overlap exists and will withdraw any proposal that another school objects to, and


WHEREAS,     the proposal specifies appropriate internal oversight and external review mechanisms which will be required for each proposed degree program, and


WHEREAS,     the creation of the School of Continuing Education would create opportunities for collaborations with other schools of the University in developing new degree programs for new and nontraditional audiences, and


WHEREAS,     the creation of the School of Continuing Education has the prospect of generating new net revenues for the Arts and Sciences and for the University;


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,       that Continuing Education, currently a division within the Arts and Sciences, shall be reconstituted as the School of Continuing Education, and that the statutes of the University shall be appropriately amended to that end, i.e., establishing the School of Continuing Education as a department of instruction and a Faculty of the University.


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED      that the Senate forward this resolution to the Trustees for appropriate action.




Committee on Education

Continuing Education at Columbia Compared to Continuing Education at Peer Institutions

As a result of the 1995 reorganization of the General Studies “construct,” Columbia finds itself without a school charged to develop the kind of applied professional graduate degree programs for working adults that are bringing substantial revenue flows to the institutions with which Columbia competes locally and nationally. The reorganization created two units—the new General Studies focused on the bachelor’s degree program for non-traditional students, and Continuing Education as a non-degree division housing the programs formerly part of the GS “construct.”


The situation in New York City

While Columbia’s ascendancy in New York City remains, it is increasingly challenged by New York University whose School of Continuing and Professional Studies (SCPE) is generating tens of millions of dollars of net revenues with which NYU increasingly competes with Columbia to recruit distinguished faculty and to develop important research facilities. In 1994–95, before the Columbia reorganization, the net revenues generated by NYU’s School of Continuing Education were about the same as those of Columbia’s General Studies “construct.” Six years later the net revenues of NYU are more than double the combined net revenues of GS and CE at Columbia.

      NYU’s increasing advantage does not result from the underperformance of CE at Columbia. On the contrary, CE has since 1995 experienced a robust growth in net annual revenues from approximately $15 million in 1994–95 to $24 million in 2000–01. This growth has been derived entirely from the development and growth of non-degree and non-credit programs. However, CE’s inability to develop graduate-level degree programs cuts it out of the largest potential portion of the continuing education market. Without a major local challenger, NYU’s SCPE has successfully proliferated graduate degree and certificate programs while CE at Columbia can only mount credit courses suitable for degree candidates in other schools at Columbia. In a word, there is a large arena in which Columbia has yet to compete. The longer it cedes that territory to NYU, the more likely it is that NYU will have the resources with which to challenge Columbia on a number of fronts.


The national situation

Several of our peer institutions have units that have entered the competition for the growth market in continuing education—the development of applied professional master’s degree programs housed in their CE schools.

      The University of Pennsylvania’s School of General Studies offers masters programs in bioethics and in environmental studies. Johns Hopkins University has twelve master’s program and one doctoral program offered through its continuing education school, though its situation is different in the sense that Hopkins has no graduate business school and no graduate school of education, and its continuing education school in part fills that vacuum. Northwestern University’s School of Continuing Studies offers master’s degrees in integrated marketing communications and in computer information systems. Harvard University’s Extension School, like CE at Columbia, a part of Arts and Sciences, grants a master’s degree in information technology in addition to a number of graduate certificate and diploma programs in such fields as administration and management, public health, museum studies, etc. These programs co-exist with robust and distinguished graduate professional programs. Harvard’s Extension School transfers to Arts and Sciences several million dollars each year while providing periodically tens of millions of dollars in capital for Harvard Yard projects. Over time, Columbia Arts and Sciences could create a school of continuing education to provide the same kind of relief to its operating and capital budgets.[1]



In 1997–98, the Academic Review Committee of the Arts and Sciences reviewed Continuing Education and Special Programs (formerly the Division of Special Programs). In preparation for that review, a self-study was completed in November 1997, which included a multi-year strategic plan. The self-study proposed establishing a degree-granting school that could respond to the growing need for adult education in the New York metropolitan area and that could potentially become an enhanced source of revenue. Other universities in the Columbia cohort, such as Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Johns Hopkins, have well-established and highly successful schools of continuing education, and continuing education has gained increasing focus at others, such as the University of Chicago. The Academic Review Committee endorsed the strategic plan in May 1998.

      The proposal to establish a degree-granting school was subsequently supported by the deans of the Arts and Sciences, the Executive Committee of the Faculty, the departmental chairs, and the full Faculty of Arts and Sciences. An earlier version of the proposal was also sent to the deans of all schools at Columbia and was discussed at the May 1999 meeting of the Council of Deans. The process of consultation also involved meetings of the dean of Continuing Education with the deans or vice deans of Nursing, Business, and Journalism, and an exchange of letters with the deans of Social Work and Law. This version of the proposal addresses comments and concerns of individuals with whom there were consultations, as well as those raised in the discussion at the Council of Deans.

As part of the planning process, a market analysis (limited to a few selected populations) was undertaken with the assistance of outside consultants. The analysis helped clarify Columbia’s position in the local continuing education market, presented critical concerns of the population studied, identified areas of high demand in the New York area, and recommended a new, broad area of potential engagement. The results would constitute the basis for a business plan for the school, if approved.


Columbia’s History in Continuing Education

The origins of continuing education, as it is known today, began at Columbia in 1904. At that time, the Board of Trustees appointed the first Director of Extension Teaching to serve tour constituencies—part-time students, active teachers, other professionals, and the general public. In 1921, with 16,000 students enrolled, the division was renamed University Extension, and it was authorized to grant degree credit toward the B.S. degree to what were called “University Undergraduates.” This was the precursor of the School of General Studies that was formally established in 1952. It is of interest that University Extension offered correspondence courses, the anlage of distance learning. Courses were also offered off-site in New Jersey, Connecticut, Long Island, and beginning in 1928, in Brooklyn, at what was called the Seth Low Community College. The first business, creative writing, and visual arts courses offered at Columbia were offered through University Extension.

      The curriculum of University Extension extended well beyond the liberal arts and reflected the interests of the general population of the time. Courses were offered on topics such as Millinery and Advanced Millinery, Highway Engineering, Poultry, Trench Warfare, Vegetable Gardening, and Care and Mending of Children’s Underwear. In 1938, a course on The Theory and Technique of Fresh Water Angling used the university swimming pool as its “laboratory.” At its height, there were some 19,000 “students” enrolled in Extension courses. Instructional activity in fields beyond the liberal arts was gradually abandoned in the postwar period, when the mission of the School of General Studies as a liberal arts college for adults and part-time students was more sharply focused.

      The trend toward differentiating the undergraduate degree program for adults and part-time students from other missions of continuing education accelerated in 1976. In that year, Professor Aaron Warner, just then retired as the Dean of the School of General Studies, was appointed the first Dean of Continuing Education and Special Programs. That new division was charged with operating the Summer Session and developing non-credit courses to reach a more general audience. It offered high-minded short courses such as “Three Lectures on Picasso,” by Professor Meyer Shapiro, and “On Acting,” by Estelle Parsons.

      In 1981, the separation of the School of General Studies from other aspects of continuing education was reversed when Continuing Education and Special Programs was placed under the administration of the Dean of the School of General Studies. Over the next decade, a variety of non-credit programs developed. These included a course in COBOL programming—out of which the current Computer Technology and Applications Program shortly evolved—a summer program for high school students, and a lifelong learners program.

      Then, in 1995, as a result of a recommendation of the Provost’s Strategic Planning Commission, the School of General Studies was reorganized. The objective of the reorganization was to focus General Studies more clearly on its mission as an undergraduate liberal arts college for non-traditional students. The Liberal Studies M.A. program was moved to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences; and the undergraduate writing program was moved to the Writing Division of the School of the Arts. All other non-degree and non-credit programs formerly based in General Studies were relocated to a new Division of Special Programs—renamed Continuing Education and Special Programs in 1998. (An exception was the Postbaccalaureate Premedical Program that remained in General Studies.) General Studies has thrived following the reorganization. Applications have increased, student selectivity and quality have been enhanced, retention has improved significantly, effective relations with the College have been developed, and the students feel more connected to the university than ever before.

      Continuing Education and Special Programs has also thrived within the relatively narrow domain in which it currently operates. The five core activities are the American Language Program, the Computer Technology and Applications Program, the Special Students Program, the Summer Program for High School Students, and the Summer Session. Continuing Education also administers some other small programs and four study-abroad programs.

      This is the historical context in which planning began in 1996–97 to transform Continuing Education and Special Programs into a degree-granting school—the School of Continuing Education.


Why a School?

The creation of a new school is a serious matter, and no university should contemplate the establishment of new departments or schools without a compelling rationale. The Arts and Sciences believes the following considerations provide this rationale.


• Constraints on Offering Courses for Credit  New York State requires that courses offered for credit must lead to a degree. The Columbia University statutes specify that only schools can offer degrees. Therefore, for Continuing Education to offer courses for credit it must find a department or school willing to sponsor the course and have that course approved by the associated Committee on Instruction. This constrains Continuing Education to offering credit courses and programs in areas represented in the current “portfolio” of a school. For example, a potentially productive area for Continuing Education would be strategic communications, including courses relating to public relations and advertising. There is no school with either the interest or expertise to sponsor or evaluate a program in this area. Therefore, without the status of a school, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Continuing Education to mount programs in this broad area—an area strongly recommended by the market analysis commissioned by Continuing Education.

         Before concluding that establishing a separate School was necessary, efforts were made to find an “accommodating” School and Committee on Instruction that Continuing Education might engage. That procedure proved to be, at best, an exceedingly awkward mechanism, and in the end proved to be unworkable. Continuing education applied professional degree programs, taught largely by part-time practitioners, are bound to be inappropriate tenants for schools built for other more research-oriented purposes.

• The Need to Offer Courses for Credit and Degrees  To succeed in the highly competitive and accelerating market of continuing education, course credits and degrees are essential. Most continuing education students are seeking credentials from their educational experience. For some, certification is acceptable, but many seek credit courses and degrees. Therefore, without the capability to offer credit courses and degrees, a significant segment of the market would be lost.

         Another characteristic of the continuing education market is that courses for credit command a substantially higher tuition. Thus, being constrained to non-credit courses would generate considerably lower revenues for the same instructional, marketing, and administrative costs as credit courses. Also, state and federal educational loans are generally available only to students in degree programs. Finally, costs are considerably lower when students are recruited to multi-course degree programs than to individual non-credit courses.

         Most schools of continuing education offer the master’s, bachelor’s, and even the associate’s degree. The intent of this proposal is for a school that offers only graduate degrees at the master’s level. It is essential to continue the process of differentiating between Continuing Education and the School of General Studies, with its undergraduate mission, a process that has been so beneficial to both units.

• Administrative Infrastructure for Continuing Education Activities    With an expanded continuing education enterprise, a strong and professional infrastructure could be developed for marketing and operating programs. This infrastructure could broadly serve the University and stimulate and facilitate cooperative ventures with the various professional schools in areas of continuing education that they are unlikely to engage themselves because of cost and administrative burden. Consequently, a School of Continuing Education would provide revenue-sharing opportunities for other schools, the specifics of sharing agreements being determined by the extent of participation of the partnering school. However, for Continuing Education to expand its infrastructure to serve this purpose, it requires a much more substantial and robust menu of programs that would generate a substantially greater revenue stream than currently exists. As argued above, only a school with degree-granting capability can achieve this.

• Off-Site Locations    Convenient location of classes is a key factor in attracting students, and thus many universities have multiple off-site locations for continuing education. For Columbia, off-site locations are essential given the severe space constraints on the Morningside Campus. Whether such locations are purchased or leased, they require serious investment. This could not be considered without the prospect of substantially enhanced revenues. That, in turn, is too uncertain without a unit that is able to respond to the market efficiently in developing credit courses and degree programs. Without degree-granting capability, it is unlikely that Continuing Education could achieve the revenue base needed to develop significant off-site locations. Continuing Education already operates a five-classroom site evenings and weekends at 100 William Street in Manhattan’s financial district.

• Competitive Position in Marketing   Columbia must compete in the continuing education market against other universities with well-established schools of continuing and/or professional education that grant degrees. In the local market, NYU presents the most serious competition, and its School of Continuing and Professional Studies has a commanding share of the New York market. It is not proposed that Columbia try to be like it in continuing education. On the contrary, Columbia should restrict itself to the high end of the market, consistent with the University’s reputation. However, not being able to advertise Continuing Education as a school is a comparative disadvantage.

• Leadership    Since most other research universities have separate schools of continuing education, headed by a dean, it is unlikely that Columbia could, when it becomes necessary, attract the kind of specialized entrepreneurial leadership required for a thriving enterprise given its current structure. It will be necessary to offer not only a decanal position, but also a degree-granting school. There are simply too many opportunities for the limited pool of leaders in continuing education to direct enterprises with considerably more autonomy and potential than the unit currently existing at Columbia that cannot grant degrees.


      There is an understandable reluctance to establish new schools. However, if Columbia is to have a serious presence in continuing education, it is difficult to see how it could do so without Continuing Education’s having the structure of a school. Fiscal considerations aside, the extraordinarily successful continuing education program of NYU has been instrumental in eclipsing Columbia as a university perceived as serving New York City. A more effective presence of Columbia in adult education would certainly contribute to realizing the University’s goal of greater local saliency.

      With respect to financial considerations, other universities in our cohort, all with schools of continuing education, enjoy substantial revenues from those schools that significantly subsidize other parts of the university. The Arts and Sciences cannot compete with its equivalent at such schools as Harvard and Princeton with respect to endowment. Therefore, it must generate incremental revenue sources, and continuing education is one of the only areas where this is possible without aggravating the current workload of faculty or further straining limited facilities. Increasing the net recurring revenue of Continuing Education by $15 million, a realistic possibility, is equivalent to increasing the endowment of the Arts and Sciences by over $300 million. Further, this would be unrestricted revenue and is therefore equivalent to raising $300 million in fully substitutional endowment. The opportunity cost of not seizing this possibility is enormous.


Overview and Mission

It is proposed that the school offer the Master of Science degree. The school would also expand its current certificate programs to professional fields in which there is an identified training need either in the New York metropolitan area or for which there is a demand among international students. The school would offer programs in fields that are at the so-called high end of the professional market and which are consistent with the stature of Columbia.

      The new school would seek to be innovative within a university that takes great pride in its traditions. It would, through its programs of instruction, reach out broadly to communities in the metropolitan area. In this sense the school would serve the broad mission of Columbia University in the City of New York. Further, it would assist Columbia in meeting its responsibility toward the escalating national need for continuing education, driven by the increasing velocity of change in the labor market.


Quality Assurance and Governance

In its deliberations of the proposal to establish a School of Continuing Education, the Academic Review Committee of the Arts and Sciences spent considerable time discussing a governance mechanism that would assure the quality and appropriateness of programs. The outcome of those deliberations was the recommendation to establish an Executive Committee for the school that would be the equivalent of a Committee on Instruction. The committee includes six tenured faculty members from the Arts and Sciences Faculty.[2] Members are appointed for three-year terms, which in some instances could be renewed for one additional term. The Dean of Continuing Education appoints members in consultation first with the Executive Committee of the Arts and Sciences Faculty, and then in consultation with the Vice President for Arts and Sciences.

      Since it is likely that the school would pursue programs for which appropriate expertise is not available within the University, external consultation would sometimes be required. The Executive Committee will participate in identifying external consultants with expertise to review programs. In instances where a significant program area is implemented, and where internal expertise is not sufficient, members might be appointed from outside the University. Approval by the University members of the Executive Committee would be required for the appointment of any external members.

      Any new degree programs would be subject to established University and state procedures for the approval of new degrees.

      An annual report on the activities of the school would be submitted to the Vice President for Arts and Sciences, who will discuss the report with the Provost. The Academic Review Committee of the Arts and Sciences would conduct a comprehensive review in accordance with its established review cycle—approximately every six years.



While full-time faculty would have the opportunity to participate in continuing education programs for compensation, as at other universities, such programs would primarily involve part-time and adjunct instructors with particular expertise in the programmatic area. Therefore, new programs would not impose a further burden on current faculty. It might also be noted that an expanded continuing education enterprise could provide new opportunities for graduate and professional students to gain teaching experience and financial support.

      The Dean of Continuing Education would appoint the part-time and adjunct instructors for renewable one-year terms as Lecturers in Continuing Education. Few full-time appointments are anticipated, and they would require the approval of the Executive Committee of Continuing Education and the Vice President for Arts and Sciences. The title Lecturer in Continuing Education would be a rank that could not lead to tenure. Should there come a time when it is desirable to appoint full-time lecturers to multi-year, renewable contracts, the appropriate approval by governance bodies and administration would be required, and a review process analogous to that currently in place for Lecturers in Language would need to be established.

      This faculty model is comparable to that for continuing education at other universities in our cohort.


Impact on Facilities

With respect to facilities, the intent is to offer to the extent possible new programs at off-campus sites to minimize further pressure on highly constrained university space. The certificate programs in Computer Technology and Applications and Executive Information Technology Management are already offering some of their classes at a downtown location opened in January 2000.


Relationship to Other Schools

The Arts and Sciences is sensitive to the concern of the professional schools that establishing Continuing Education as a school, and the implied enhancement of its scope and activity, could potentially encroach upon the prerogatives of those schools in some educational areas. To avoid this, it is proposed that a Coordinating Committee be established consisting of representatives from each school, designated by the respective deans. Any new degree program being considered by Continuing Education would be presented to the committee for review. If any school had concerns about the proposed program with respect to its own potential plans, consultation with the involved dean, or his/her designated representative, would be initiated.

      In some cases the concerned school might have plans to engage the area. In those instances the School of Continuing Education would abandon its proposal. In other cases, the school might have no immediate plan to engage the area, but might feel it does not want to forgo future involvement. In those circumstances, a joint venture would be proposed in which the courses are collaboratively developed, with Continuing Education providing the supportive infrastructure. There may be occasional cases in which a school has no plans to engage in the area, is not interested in a joint venture, and does not wish the area engaged by Continuing Education. In those cases, Continuing Education may choose either to abandon its plan or to request that the Provost arbitrate the matter.

      Given these mechanisms to protect the interests of the professional schools, establishing a School of Continuing Education presents a real opportunity. There are potentially areas where a professional school would not undertake a venture on its own but would be interested in and would benefit from a co-venture with a mutually agreed upon revenue-sharing plan and with Continuing Education’s providing the administrative infrastructure and off-site locations for instruction.

      It should be appreciated that other universities with thriving schools of continuing education do not differ from Columbia in fundamental structure. That is, they all have a number of professional schools. Successful co-existence would be the rule, rather than the exception. Fundamental to a sound relationship between schools of continuing education and professional schools is the understanding that the professional schools have full freedom to pursue continuing education programs within their traditional areas of expertise. For example, medical schools administer programs in continuing medical education and business schools administer executive management programs. The proposal to establish a School of Continuing Education at Columbia includes full acceptance of and respect for this well-established model. There are no plans to do otherwise. Consequently, there seems to be no reason why Columbia cannot operate in a fashion comparable to other institutions, to the benefit of the entire university.


Relationship to the School of General Studies

The School of General Studies is unique to Columbia. It provides an opportunity for nontraditional students to complete an undergraduate degree with the same faculty available to the students of Columbia College, and with the exception of the Core Curriculum, the same curricular options.

      In recent years the importance of clearly delineating this unique “signature” of the School of General Studies has become appreciated. This requires clearly differentiating the school from more conventional continuing education enterprises. At the same time, Continuing Education had been historically limited by its incorporation in the School of General Studies. The disassociation of the two units in 1995, based upon the Strategic Planning Report of the Provost, has clearly benefited both units. It has permitted the School of General Studies to begin defining its identity as a unique undergraduate program, while freeing Continuing Education to develop its presence in adult graduate education. It is of advantage to both units to continue this differentiation.

      At other universities, with no counterpart to the School of General Studies, where are the non-traditional students located? Younger students with limited breaks in their undergraduate education transfer to the equivalents of the College. (At Columbia such transfer is difficult beyond the first year because of the requirements of the Core Curriculum.) Older, working students enroll in continuing education programs, where they do not share the curriculum and faculty available to traditional undergraduates, as do Columbia’s students in the School of General Studies.

      The unique character and mission of the School of General Studies is appropriate to Columbia University in the City of New York. It reinforces the University’s mission of providing educational opportunity to diverse undergraduate populations. Given this, the proposed School of Continuing Education is envisioned as a graduate school only, and the ongoing effort to differentiate between the School of General Studies and Continuing Education must be continued.



The current programs of Continuing Education and Special Programs include credit and non-credit courses offered both on-campus and off-campus to non-degree students and to degree students from other schools. Certificate programs are also offered.

      New master’s degree programs will require review and approval of the Executive Committee of Continuing Education, the Dean of Continuing Education, the Vice President for Arts and Sciences, the Provost, the University Senate, and New York State. Each program will be overseen by advisory boards, to include some of the lecturers participating in the program and in some instances other individuals with a current and broad perspective on the area. The Executive Committee would be responsible for overseeing the entire curricular portfolio of the school with respect to quality, coherence, and appropriateness.

      In the discussion at the Council of Deans, some deans felt that the presentation of at least one master’s program was important, to give a sense of the kinds of programs that might be developed. A market analysis has been completed since that discussion, and a key recommendation flowing from that analysis is that Continuing Education should pursue “strategic communications” as a major programmatic area. That degree program has already been developed and approved by CE’s Executive Committee. A resolution that the new School of Continuing Education be authorized to confer the Master of Science degree in Strategic Communications accompanies this resolution.


Concluding Comments

Columbia does not currently have a serious presence in continuing education, in contrast to most other universities in its cohort. It is argued that to establish such a presence requires a degree-granting school. This is the structure at other universities, where in most instances they have a complement of professional schools similar to that of Columbia. The Arts and Sciences has been persuaded that without the structure of a school, a thriving adult education enterprise simply cannot be achieved.

      Every effort has been made in the current proposal to recommend effective mechanisms for reviewing the quality and appropriateness of continuing education programs and for assuring that the interests of the professional schools are protected. Since these objectives have been successfully achieved at other universities, there is no reason to believe that this cannot be the case at Columbia as well.

      The potential gains of developing a thriving continuing education enterprise are multiple: meeting a real and accelerating educational need, establishing an enhanced presence for Columbia in New York, and generating a new source of revenue. A School of Continuing Education would provide the opportunity to develop an administrative infrastructure that could serve cooperative ventures with other schools at the University and could generate the resources required for establishing off-campus educational sites. Such cooperative ventures could enhance the programs and resources of other schools. And the revenues anticipated from a successful continuing education enterprise are essential to the future of the Arts and Sciences.

      The multi-year budget projections of the Arts and Sciences indicate balanced budgets, but barely. If the Arts and Sciences is to be competitive with leading research universities, it must have the capacity to invest in faculty, programs, and facilities. This can only be achieved by generating new sources of revenue, and continuing education is one of the only possibilities available to the Arts and Sciences for incremental revenue.

      Many other universities with which we compete have considerably more resources. In many instances we believe that thriving continuing education enterprises have contributed significantly to those resources. Columbia has never exploited this possibility, even though its venue in New York City is ideal for doing so. The opportunity cost of not having done so is incalculable. Had the Arts and Sciences enjoyed an additional $10–$15 million in unrestricted annual revenue that could have been generated by a School of Continuing Education, its history and current position would be strikingly different and its ability to contribute to the general welfare of the University would be substantially greater. The transaction costs of establishing a new school seem minor with respect to what such a school could contribute to the Arts and Sciences and to the University.

[1] Continuing Education has since 1994–95 transferred accumulated balances of $2.5 million in 1995 and $1.8 million in 2000, and additional incentive earnings of $750,000 will finance a substantial portion of the Language Resource Center in 2001–02.

[2] The Executive Committee is composed of six faculty, two each from the Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences: Paul Anderer (East Asian Languages and Cultures), David Kastan (English), Bruce Berne (Chemistry), Charles Hailey (Physics), Andrew Nathan (Political Science), and Richard Bulliet (History). The Dean of Continuing Education and the Vice President for Arts and Sciences serve ex officio. The Associate Dean of CE serves as Secretary to the Committee.