Explore how departments at Rutgers University and the University of Kentucky are structuring campus rec fitness certification pathways to meet student and staffing needs.
There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to fitness certifications in campus recreation. Departments across the country are relying on a range of models — from fully external credentials to in-house and hybrid training programs — to meet the needs of students and staff. Understanding how these models function and why departments choose them can help campus rec leaders evaluate and refine their own certification strategies.
Consistency and Credibility in External Models
Some campus recreation departments choose to rely exclusively on external certification organizations to ensure consistent instructional standards and provide students with credentials that last beyond their time in college. At Rutgers University (Rutgers), all student fitness instructors are required to have an external certification through organizations like Les Mills and the National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM).
Stacy Trukowski, the director of Recreation and Programs at Rutgers, said this external approach offers significant benefits to students and the department. The ongoing partnership Rutgers has with Les Mills and NASM has provided the ability to host on-site trainings and receive ongoing program support.
“We’ve chosen this external model for several important reasons,” said Trukowski. “It serves as a meaningful professional development opportunity for our students, provides consistency and supports mentorship, and we trust these organizations to uphold high-quality, industry-leading standards.”
Requiring external certifications also ensures all instructors share a common foundation of knowledge, which supports mentoring relationships between student instructors and professional staff.
While Rutgers does offer one internal training program — RU Strength — participants must hold a group fitness or personal training certification prior to the training. The program includes a workshop focused on class design, cues and format, followed by several weeks of teaching alongside an experienced instructor.
External-first models offer consistency and efficiency for many departments, but others have found value in layering internal education and mentorship on top of national standards.
Adaptable In-House and Hybrid Approaches
Other campus rec departments have adopted hybrid approaches that blend national certification standards with in-house training and mentorship. At the University of Kentucky (UK), the fitness team operates Fit Academy, a cohort-based program designed to prepare students for certification.
Fit Academy follows the National Exercise Trainers Association (NETA) group fitness and personal training outlines while adapting parts of the curriculum to emphasize hands-on learning rather than lecture-heavy education.
Depending on staffing and programming needs, group sizes vary, and training is led by graduate assistants, program leads or the fitness coordinator. Students pursuing format-specific instruction — such as yoga, dance or Pilates — complete external certifications aligned with their chosen avenue and then receive additional in-house mentoring.
“Working with specific formats has given students a leg up because they attend the concentrated format-specific training, mentor with a senior instructor and focus on those format details over a general fitness certification,” said Lindsay Thomayer, the assistant director for Fitness at UK. “I believe they get more out of their Fit Academy experience when immersed in one format and then graduate the program with more confidence.”
Hybrid models also offer departments greater flexibility to adapt to student schedules, learning styles and semester-to-semester changes while still maintaining alignment with industry standards. As departments evaluate which model best fits their structure, broader trends around student interest and accessibility continue to influence certification decisions.
Trends and Takeaways for Campus Rec Leaders
Across campus rec departments, leaders are seeing similar trends influence certification decisions. Cost and time commitment remain significant considerations for students, particularly for longer certification programs. Many students are drawn to options that can be completed in a day or spread across a semester, requiring only a few hours per week.
Virtual certifications and continuing education opportunities have also become more common, improving accessibility but presenting challenges in ensuring meaningful skill development. Student interest in specific certification formats often mirrors broader industry trends.
Despite differences in approach, campus rec leaders emphasized certifications serve a broader purpose than meeting instructional requirements.
“It helps students develop highly transferable skills applicable to a wide range of non-fitness careers,” said Trukowski. “Instructors build public speaking confidence, strengthen communication skills, and learn leadership, time management and professionalism.”
Rather than searching for the single best model, campus rec leaders are finding success by aligning certification strategies with their department priorities. Whether relying on external credentials, developing in-house training or blending both approaches, understanding the range of certification models can help departments make informed decisions that support both student development and long-term program success.
