Continuing education (CE) units have long been vital components of higher education institutions. They serve diverse learners, align academic offerings with workforce needs and generate significant revenue streams. However, despite these contributions, a common and troubling phrase persists: CE units are often referred to as cash cows for their institutions.
This phrase, while seemingly innocuous, is both offensive and dismissive. It reduces CE units to mere profit centers and ignores the multifaceted role they play in advancing institutional missions, supporting diverse learners and driving innovation.
1. Oversimplifying a Complex Mission
The 2025 State of Continuing Education report makes it clear that CE units are not simply about revenue. They provide educational access to alumni, municipal workers, healthcare professionals and others who may not fit the traditional mold of a full-time student. These units offer workforce-aligned programs that respond directly to community and industry needs.Labeling CE units as cash cows devalues their role in equity, access and lifelong learning. It sends the message that their value lies solely in financial gain when their mission is deeply tied to public service and institutional impact.
2. Ignoring the Real Challenges CE Units Face
Behind every successful CE program is a team navigating significant institutional and operational hurdles. Several challenges that get overlooked in the cash cow reference include the following: - CE enrollments have declined, reaching their lowest average since 2021–2022.
- Staffing has become a critical issue, with a 10% drop in perceived adequate support from 2024 to 2025.
- Administrative burdens and time-to-market pressures make program development difficult.
- Technology integration remains a persistent barrier, hindering real-time data access and smooth operations.
These are not signs of units operating on autopilot while churning out revenue. These are units grappling with the complexities of running agile, responsive and meaningful educational programs in environments that often lack sufficient resources or support.
3. Disregarding the Struggle for Academic Parity
Perhaps most disheartening is that CE units continue to fight for equal recognition. Only 21% of survey respondents feel that CE units are seen as academically equal to traditional departments. While they are widely regarded as hubs of innovation, this recognition rarely translates into academic legitimacy or inclusion in strategic planning at the same level as other colleges or schools.
In this context, calling CE units cash cows is not just inaccurate but deeply disrespectful. It erases the struggle for parity and diminishes the hard-won achievements of CE leaders and staff.
4. Revenue Generation Should Not Undermine Mission
Yes, many CE units generate significant revenue, but the report also shows the various ways this revenue is handled:
- 27% of units send all revenue to a centralized unit like the provost’s office.
- 25% send a flat percentage.
- Only 7% retain all revenue.
Rather than being profit-driven enterprises, most CE units operate under financial models that require them to share revenue and often reinvest in new programming with limited control.
Conclusion: A Better Way to Talk About CE Units
It’s time we retire the term cash cow when talking about CE units. Doing so would acknowledge their full value—educational, social and economic. A better way to describe CE units would be as revenue-generating innovation hubs that extend the university’s mission to adult learners, professionals and the broader workforce.
Let’s recognize continuing education units for what they truly are: powerful engines of access, agility and academic relevance in an era of constant change.
You Might Also Like
