Graduate and extended education has transformed over the past two decades, driven by online learning, shifting student expectations and workforce demands. Institutions now focus on flexible, competency-based pathways that equip learners for lifelong career mobility. In this interview, Victor Taylor discusses the expansion of online learning, aligning education with workforce needs and the power of lifelong learning.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): How have you seen the landscape of graduate and extended studies evolve in recent years?
Victor Taylor (VT): That’s a big question. If we look at the past two decades, we see some noticeable trends. One is the expansion of online programs across institution types—R1 universities to liberal arts colleges to two-year colleges. When online learning becomes more available and affordable, there’s a substantial increase in graduate and undergraduate degree completion enrollment nationally. This new modality has also changed the basic structure of graduate—largely master’s-level—education and continuing education. The key to being online isn’t just availability on a screen. It’s how it’s made available in shorter semesters and fully asynchronous options. The next era will be shaped by faster-paced competency-based learning and GenAI tutoring and instruction.
In the graduate area, students have expanded options. The MBA, for instance, used to be the gold standard for graduate business education. Now you see the online market opening to various industry- and area-specific programs. Students have graduate degree options in a wide range of specializations, HR, marketing, accounting, leadership, finance, etc. Cost is the other component. Many institutions are competing in the online market, which brings costs down. So, online availability is significant as a game changer, but so are delivery modalities and program choices that students have today that they didn’t have before. It even extends to microcredentialing, with some graduate degrees consisting of stacks of certificates or modules. We’re exploring this area for some SDSU graduate programs.
Evo: What are some challenges within graduate and extended programs when trying to align with workforce needs, learner expectations and institutional priorities?
VT: Before, a student’s undergraduate degree would give them a broad foundation for learning, and general education was a large part of curricula. They would be hired into an organization and get training and resources from their employer to advance their careers. This was the path for many English and humanities majors. That’s changed with students because they’re now forced to become more and more specialized in specific areas. In many instances, they’ve lost what was once thought of as being well rounded. That’s been a problem because of the increased expectations in fields of knowledge and the narrowing of majors and increasing discipline-specific requirements. It isn’t a new problem per se. There has always been a tension between training and education. The obvious limitation of focusing too much on training-based curricula is that the knowledge and skills environment can change quickly, and students need resources to be resilient and adapt as job demands change.
While students and parents may prefer the supposed certainty of more focused or specialized plans of study, hiring managers and CEOs like job candidates with a wide range of abilities and skills, many of which come from arts and humanities courses. Even though a graduate degree means super-specializing in an area, there’s also still an interest in building knowledge and skills flexibility and adaptability in students’ capabilities, so they develop an ability to learn new things to progress up the career ladder in an organization. Graduate-level capstone projects are good examples of this approach. Students are challenged to think critically and apply their knowledge to a real-world problem. Case studies and simulation work are good examples of how high-level knowledge and practical reasoning can come together to meet workforce talent demands. The goal is to find ways to creatively align education, workforce needs and benefits of having adaptive students and future employees.
Evo: With the increase of bite-sized education, how should institutions rethink their approaches to curricula design and credential stacking to better serve modern learners?
VT: We live in an accelerated educational and global knowledge environment. Some institutions are racing to keep up with content, but the better approach would be to focus on content area expertise and teach students how they can teach themselves. In fast-moving fields like computer science, it’s often hard to see beyond the innovation horizon. But if you can provide students with advanced foundational knowledge in addition to content, then you’re equipping them to learn what the new technologies, processes and approaches of the future will be. Instilling curiosity is important, and ideally students will continue their education and perhaps create a plan to invest in microcredentials and other professional learning opportunities. So, microcredentialing can be used as part of curricular planning or as a professional goal for continuing education.
Evo: How can universities balance the need for innovation, interdisciplinary and flexible learning pathways with the structural and accreditation requirements of a traditional graduate education?
VT: This is an important question. Many rules, guidelines and practices inhibit innovation and flexibility. For example, not all courses have to be 15 weeks long. We can achieve the same student learning outcomes in seven or eight weeks. Professional master’s programs can be thesis or non-thesis, depending on student interests and career plans. We also can have flexibility in total credit hours—30 versus 36 or 42 if accreditors allow. When we see these barriers to innovation, we need to ask ourselves whether we’re serving student needs well. One good example of thinking outside the box is credit for prior learning and the importance of recognizing that college-level learning occurs beyond the classroom. For some administrators, faculty and accreditors this notion will be difficult to fathom, but we need to question the status quo if we are to survive as an industry.
Evo: What role should graduate and extended studies play in fostering a lifelong learning ecosystem that supports career mobility and that economic?
VT: All those things fit naturally together because we’re talking about post-traditional students. We need to push lifelong learning back and move it forward at the same time. The book entitled The 60-Year Curriculum by Dede and Richards notes that we need to encourage students to think about the university as a lifelong learning provider from the undergraduate level. Being an alum means having a learning home for life. Many university career centers offer ongoing assistance with resumes and cover letters. We should do the same on the academic side—learning for life.
As a land-grant institution, we at SDSU have a commitment to student access. That access is for our traditional students but also our 50-, 60-, 70+-year-old learners who wish to continue to engage and connect with the campus.
Evo: Is there anything you’d like to add?
VT: Graduate education, especially professional master’s degrees, are a great option to restart, advance or change careers. Completing a four-year degree for students who stopped out is important, too. There are over 40 million people in the United States with some college who are potential degree completers. That is a huge audience for whom we can make a difference. It’s important to help those potential students be successful throughout their lives. We need to recognize their previous work and learning and help them upskill and reskill for future opportunities. Credit for prior learning is an important component, as are 4+1 programs in which students can complete a portion of a graduate program while an undergrad.
You Might Also Like
