Research on Developments in Planning and Underway

In 2022, the Council of Graduate Schools launched an 18-month project to examine the relationship between emerging post-baccalaureate microcredentials and the master's degree. Educational Testing Service (ETS) provided grant support and supported a 2023 convening on the project. 

Interest in this research grew with recognition that many universities were beginning to stack microcredentials and certificates, sometimes combining them with master's degrees. Some of these offerings were being framed as alternative credentials, and sometimes these emerging nondegree credentials were being described as something that could supplant  degrees. The new research examined these developments. 

The project kicked off with six focus groups in October 2022. This included groups of graduate deans, higher education administrators, continuing education and extension professionals, national employer groups, and workforce experts. The focus groups surfaced one of the major challenges for this project:  inconsistent terminology. Credential As You Go and its companion initiative, the Learn & Work Ecosystem Library, have been working to address this problem by developing  a dictionary on incremental credentialing and a Glossary of Terms used in the learn-and-work ecosystem.

Participants in focus groups were particularly vexed by the word microcredential. For some, the term denoted a specific type of credential offered at their institution, but most respondents used it as a blanket term to cover many different credential types. Unfortunately, that blanket did not cover the same credentials at each institution, which complicated the effort to conduct a national survey. To address the issue, the survey focused solely on credit-bearing, transcriptable graduate certificates.

Survey Design, Research Questions, Methodology

The survey focused on three interrelated themes: the relationship between nondegree credentials and degrees; the application of nondegree credentials in the workforce; and determining the quality of these nondegree credentials, both from a university and employer perspective.

Four core research questions were:

1. What role do graduate badges and certificates play in employers’ initial hiring decisions? 
2. What role do graduate certificates play in reskilling and upskilling current workers? 
3. If master's degrees remain an employer preference for job entry or promotion, what skill set does the degree signal but shorter-term credentials don't provide?
4. What vehicles exist or can be developed that ensure quality and relevance of postbaccalaureate certificates and degrees to future workforce needs?

CGS fielded three surveys in early 2023—one to graduate deans, one to graduate program directors, and a third to the employer roundtable. Polling for the first was conducted between January and February 2023; 211 graduate deans responded. The program-level survey was sent to certificate directors in March 2023; 298 program directors responded.

CGS was also able to incorporate new questions about graduate certificates into the NACE Recruiting Benchmarks Survey which went out late spring 2023.

Also, CGS conducted more than 20 Zoom interviews with various stakeholders. These interviews informed a series of five case studies included in the report and also provided follow-up on some questions that emerged during the focus groups and surveys.

All of that material supported a June 2023 project convening of some 30 attendees from diverse stakeholder groups. From that convening emerged the major themes, ideas, and findings in the CGS report. 

Highlights and Findings 

The report’s two highlights are that (1) certificate programs operate largely in a master's ecosystem; and (2) certificate programs are common in certain fields and have a mixed relationship with master's education.  

Five key findings emerged from the research:

1. Postbaccalaureate certificates are best understood, not as an alternative to degrees, but as part of a larger ecosystem that includes graduate degrees.
2. Many programs are new and have small enrollments.
3. Departments and programs remain the drivers of program creation. 
4. Assessing microcredential quality remains problematic, particularly balancing quality with speed.
5. “Stacking” certificates is still in the development phase at many institutions. 

Finding #1: postbaccalaureate certificates being best understood as part of a larger ecosystem that includes graduate degrees. When asked how likely it is that certificates will replace the graduate degree as a certificate of choice for employers, 62% of the graduate deans who responded said it probably will not, and 15% said they definitely will not. Only 7% said they definitely will (16% were indifferent on this question). So there's a widespread belief among deans that certificates won’t replace degrees as employers’ credential of choice. However, this does not mean that certificates and other microcredentials are unimportant in supporting learners and employers. As the testimonials in the report show, nondegree credentials are valuable in signaling acquisition of specific skills or competencies. 

The post-survey interviews revealed some interesting ways in which master's degrees and certain certificates work together beyond simple stacking. In particular, three types of this degree-certificate symbiosis emerged:

• First, certificates can help learners customize their master's degree to fit a specific career pathway. Many times, the certificate brings in skills from another discipline(s) to signal interest in a specific career pathway or trajectory. One could term this approach “interdisciplinary lite because it allows for skills from other disciplines to migrate from one discipline to another without forcing a fundamental revaluation of curriculum within a master's program. An interesting example of this approach came from an institution that offered a graduate certificate in data analytics that was jointly administered between a chemistry and a biology department. Officials at the institution assumed that the certificate would be used by master’s graduates to signal to industry that they had data analysis skills to complement their chemistry and biology knowledge. But the program director revealed that many students were instead using this certificate as a signal to academia. Many of these students were applying to doctoral programs, and they found that Ph.D. programs really valued the students’ enhanced skills in data analysis. It is important to note that, even when designed to speak to industry, many certificate programs may have broad applicability in academia as well—especially as academic programs become more interdisciplinary.
• Second, a certificate can update a master's degree that the degree holder may have had for some time. Nondegree credentials allow master's degree holders to gain new skills and competencies without going back for full degree programs. Post-survey interviews revealed that this is particularly important in certain fast-changing technological fields. It also applies in teaching fields, where new competencies and knowledge should be rewarded by promotion or pay raises.
• Third, certificates and master's programs can work together to broaden career pathways and signal a desire for more career options for those who hold the master's degree. Some certificate programs are used to acquire a particularly desirable skill or set of skills that had broad applicability to several careers—again, often in data science or data analytics. An interesting example was a certificate in women’s studies  popular among master’s students in the humanities. Students were taking that certificate because they found it had broad applicability both in academia and the workforce. In academia, it signaled that master’s students seeking to enter doctoral programs might qualify to teach or act as TAs in courses or departments beyond their home department (for example, an interdisciplinary women's studies department). In the workforce,  the certificate drew interest from employers seeking candidates with knowledge of Title IX compliance. It was also seen as a potential pathway into Title IX administration at universities or in corporate settings. 

Finding #2: Many programs are new and have small enrollments. The focus groups often indicated that nondegree credentials are major enrollment drivers, but the survey research did not support that contention. In fact, the survey showed that programs' median class size was surprisingly small: just 12 students. Interviews with program directors revealed several possible explanations for these small enrollments: 

• The first and most common reason is that the programs are new, many in existence for less than two years. Program directors expected enrollments to grow as the programs become better established, as graduates enter the workforce, and as advertising communicates the programs’ value. 
• Another reason for limited enrollments is that certificate programs sometimes grow out of an employer partnership. In some partnerships, employers restrict program participation to a specific cohort of eligible employees. In these cases, the certificate program is small by design—and many employers value an intimate, community-like setting in such programs. 
• A third reason for low enrollment is that a certificate program may be totally or partially embedded in one or multiple master’s programs—which can limit the pool of potential students for that certificate 

In their interviews, some program directors also revealed they didn't know why their programs’ enrollments were lower than expected. But they said they hoped enrollments would grow, and that they’d tried new marketing and taken other steps to boost enrollment. 

In the context of enrollment, it’s important to note that, since many of these programs are meant to meet specific employer needs, they must be designed so they can pivot quickly—or be eliminated if they no longer meet that employer need. Having clear and concise processes for sunsetting—as well as for curriculum change, program development, and policy improvement—is vital for employer-focused certificates. 

Finding #3: Academic departments and programs remain the drivers of credential program creation. When graduate deans were asked which units on their campuses were responsible for developing and administering transcripted credit-bearing postgraduate certificates, most of them listed  academic departments, programs, or  colleges—in other words, the same units that are responsible for degree programs. This finding was supported by responses heard in focus groups and interviews. 

Much was said about the importance of faculty champions for a program's success, and that those champions—often the individuals who led program creation—need support from administration if programs are to succeed. 

Clearly, this dynamic is common to both degree and nondegree programs—and it’s not their only point of commonality. Several shared values and principles emerged that can guide the development and administration of certificate programs. Here are seven:

• Student-centeredness
• Collaboration
• Responsiveness to industry, workforce, and learner demand
• Flexibility
• Clear, transparent policies
• High quality
• Promoting equitable access to meaningful work. 

These principles and values also hold for degree programs—an important reminder that seems new may not be as new as we think. Even when operating in emerging areas and modes, received wisdom and knowledge can be immensely valuable. 

Finding #4: Assessing microcredential quality remains problematic. The survey of deans showed that more than three years typically pass before certificate programs are  reviewed—and 27% of such programs are not regularly reviewed at all. This begs a number of questions: Has the excitement of launching these programs outpaced the effort to create policies to review and assess them? What aspects of the degree-assessment process can be applied directly to the assessment of new nondegree programs? What new/original thinking will be required to develop effective program review and quality assurance for certificates and other microcredentials? What core data points are being used to evaluate curriculum and the quality of certificates? 

The top choices for gauging quality are those often used now to evaluate degree programs: student learning, outcomes assessment, enrollment size, faculty qualifications, and completion rates. Further down the list come career outcomes and employer satisfaction. 

The NACE survey showed that employers view college and university certificates as being of particularly high quality compared to their competitors. Three out of four employers (75%) rated college and university certificates as high or very high quality; only  13.2% did so for certificates from online providers. Clearly, employers view college and university certificates as valuable, and traditional higher education has earned a lot of credibility among employers as credential providers. This may be an important point of entry for graduate schools looking to work more closely with employers. 

Finding #5: Stacking certificates is still in the development phase at many institutions. The survey of program directors showed that only about 50% of certificates are stackable, and the same percentage fail to streamline the admissions pathways to related degree programs. Though stacking is often cited as a major asset of certificates, fully half of them are not being stacked. 

During post-survey interviews, program directors cited three main reasons why programs may not be stacking certificates. One echoed a previous finding—that some certificates are unstackable because they are embedded in degree programs,  usually a master's degree. 

Second, program officials often want to ensure that each part of the stack of certificates has value for the learner. Because not all program participants will want to stack a certificate, each layer in the stack must be structured to stand on its own to benefit the learner. 

A third problem with stacking, perhaps the most complex, involves sequencing. Sequencing a stack properly can be immensely challenging To serve a range of students, a stack should have multiple access (entry) points. At the same time, stack sequencing should make sense for all learners at whatever entry point they choose. Learners need to be able to clearly see a pathway to their particular goals, and those pathways (particularly for advanced learners) must avoid dead-ends, tangents, and retraced steps. And with all of this, each layer in the stack needs to have discrete value. This demands intensive coordination and may also require implementation or aggregation of other policies, including those related to the  recognition of prior learning. All of this is a complicated and time-consuming process that can stymie any institution—even one that is committed to developing stackable credentials.