University Senate Proposed:
April 26, 2002
Adopted:
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE SCHOOL OF
CONTINUING EDUCATION
IN THE ARTS AND SCIENCES
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.
Proponent:
Committee on
Education
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.”
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.
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]
Introduction
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.
Faculty
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.
Curriculum
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.