 So, I'm here with Mitzi Montoya, who is the Dean of the College of Technology and Innovation at Arizona State University. She also leads the Aerospace and Defense Research Collaboratory at ASU, and her research focuses on innovation processes and how technology enables team decision making. And this is Jim Newton, who is the Chairman and Founder of TechShop, and so TechShop is in its own description, it's kind of a fitness club for makers, so you might say that you need a pool to get fit, but you wouldn't put one in your house, and sort of similarly they have all the tools to help people who are making things. And Jim is also a former BattleBots competitor and a former Science Advisor on Mythbusters. And so we're here to talk about turning practice into play, and I think probably also about turning play into practice. And so I think that the big question that I have for both of you to start off with, and then we can also hopefully have you guys direct to the discussion where you'd like to go as well, but is what is the importance of learning by doing, and how can establishments, so either businesses or universities help foster that. So Mitzi, do you want to? Sure. So I think it goes back to something that you said a moment ago in your comments, which is learning by doing is critical in any field, but in my college in particular, we have science, engineering, math, and management programs, and unfortunately, higher ed's got the same problem K-12 does, is that we've divorced the doing from the learning about it, and as you noted, you can't really learn programming by reading about it, right? So same thing. One of the reasons we have so many kids leave engineering programs is because we don't let them do anything until they get to the end. So if they suffer through the first three years, we finally then do a capstone where they do some faux project, but meanwhile, they're not doing anything. So I think it's really important that we captivate their imaginations early so that they both want to come in and pursue engineering or science degrees, but then make that part of the learning because it doesn't actually have to be torturous to learn and get a degree. It could be fun. You could be building things along the way, be working on real problems. And so is that what you find that, the sort of folks who come in to TechShop, and I have to imagine it's a broad number of people, are there people coming in with ideas looking to help actualize them, or are they folks who just like, you know, I actually need some help just doing the actual making? How does it work? We have both kinds of people. Some people come in, they say, you know, here's exactly what I want to do. I don't know how to do it. Can you show me how to do it? And some people come in and they say, you know, I don't know what I want to make, but with all the stuff here, you know, my wheels are turning. I got to try to make something. So in the academic environment, what have you found among kids who are doing while learning? How does that change what they're actually absorbing and the kind of work that they're actually doing? Well, a couple of things. And one, I want to follow on what you said, which is also that I think it's unfortunate that in most university programs, someone who has their own idea has to wait. I mean, you have two choices. Either I get my degree or I work on my idea. The idea is a hobby and it's not part of what they could actually work on as part of their degree. And we need programs and the programs we've built allow a student to work on their own idea and work on that as part of their degree, credentialing. So why is it important? And one of the things that we hear, we've created a whole project spine. We call them I projects, I for innovation, idea, whatever, a lot of which are sponsored by companies. And the reason they sponsor the projects and these students start on projects, first semester, freshman year, every semester they're after, is they tell us we've solved the two-year problem. So the problem of, okay, great, now you've got a degree, but you can't do anything. And so then the company's got to spend the next two years training them to actually do something. So they learn to do things. They, you know, we always talk about these things like critical thinking and problem solving as if they're magical components that get instilled in you. And they really aren't. You actually have to practice that. So you have to practice it with real problems that have unknown outcomes and you have to make things. You learn something by making it and failing and then trying again and figuring it out. So messing around and tinkering and playing and working on ideas that you want to work on, your own ideas. That's right. And that's what I see driving people to learn about, you know, how to use the welder or how to use the milling machine or anything. They don't, they're not coming in and saying, you know, we don't say, here, make this, make this, make this thing. They come in and they say, I want to make this thing. And they're driven. Yeah. And then how do I do it? Right. And then how, and let them figure it out and let them learn. It's interesting how one of the issues I see in academia is we've divorced technology from engineering, which is a real shame. Same thing we've done in high schools where kids aren't encouraged to take shop anymore. You know, that's not on the college track. And so you shouldn't do that because you'll be wasting your time and you don't get in that next AP class. And I'm not knocking AP classes, they're fine. But they also don't, they don't make anything in AP class. And then they come to us and they don't know what to do with those machines. They're afraid of them. And so then the typical university response is to hire a lab tech who will run the machine for him. You know, can you make this for me? And that's wrong. We actually need them to use the machines themselves. They need to make it wrong however many times and figure out that there's a cost to that. And then, more importantly, it's fun. And then that hooks them. And then they come in and they want to be there in all hours making things, doing things. And so we've ended up having to build a lot more facilities for those very reasons because they want to be in there making things and doing things. Yeah, it's fascinating because there's a whole debate actually going on in Washington right now about bringing manufacturing back to the US. And a lot of it has to do with supporting things like vocational training. It used to be that, especially like community colleges did vocational training. But then it went out of vogue for a lot of reasons. Now they're actually trying to bring it back. Not simply to give people wrote skills so you can go be a plumber, go do X, go do Y. But because they actually have started to think that we've lost a lot of innovation by not doing. And that not having a big manufacturing base is part of that, but also not having the sort of schools that are set up to do that, that is true. So are there examples that both of you could give of either failed projects or succeeded projects that have come out of this integration of being able to learn while doing and being able to touch and see and kind of get in there? Well, lots of projects fail. It's actually really good to fail. That's another thing that schools have taught the kids that you can't fail. You have to be successful every time. No, we've seen lots of people come in and have an idea and sometimes launch, our biggest one was a $10 million company out of tech shop. And if you don't try hard enough, if you don't try and fail, then you're not trying hard enough. That's what I believe. So I say we see it every single semester. So we work on projects. These I've projects are required throughout our programs. Every single one of them, those students experience failure and that is a critical piece of what they're learning. So they're learning that they have to, fails a short word for experiment, explore, discover. They got to figure out what doesn't work. And the reality is they don't know how to do it. And actually I'll comment on something. I don't know who said it earlier, but we have one of the things that reasons companies keep coming back to us. I'll use one example, Honeywell sponsors six to 10 projects every semester. And they come back to us because these students don't have any context. They don't know anything. In other words, they're not steeped in the, oh, we've tried that before. It can't be done. They don't know. They don't know any better. So they're creative, they're inventive. And it goes, I think, oh, I know it was the distance from the solution is in fact those that can solve the problem faster. So they don't know any better. So they use what they know. They're coming at it from all these different ways. And they, about first attempt, they're wrong. Then they try and they try and try again. So I think the failure piece is really critical. And the examples of how we're trying to bring back a focus on manufacturing is we have engineering technology degrees, which if anybody knows what engineering technology degrees are, they are seriously out of vogue in higher ed. Most universities are killing them off as quickly as they can. And there is sincere arrogance amongst engineering faculty, in my opinion, and many would not agree or be offended that I'll say this, but looking down on engineering technology. And by the way, they're the ones who can generally get a plant up and running and keep it running. They are the technologists. They are the hands-on. They're the builders or the makers. So it's not actually all about equations in the back of the book, which is unfortunate. And that's how, see, we need engineering. Obviously, a technologist did not build my chair. If I go all the way down, I didn't plan it. But it's really critical. And so we're trying to, we also, because there's intense pressure, will likely be phasing our engineering technology degree programs out. But what we will do is keep what they're good at and instead embed it in our engineering program, which is not the norm. So that is, we'll embed the prototyping capability. We have phenomenal facilities, world-class welding facilities, world-class machine shop facilities. And ordinarily, you wouldn't use those, believe it or not, in an engineering program. So we will, and so we will change it. And it's because we have a project spine. And more engineering schools need to move that way. And that is not the norm, right? And that's really critical and it's fundamental as we work to fix what we're doing on our side that's part of the problem and why we don't encourage people to continue in engineering. Because they don't see the point. I mean, it's just more problems in the back of the book instead of, I could build something. And so in the, of the stuff that the folks in your school and in your business are making, I think that when we think about the maker economy and about how the internet has allowed people to be small producers and to, you know, be able to sell to a broad group of people, we think of things like Etsy, which I think is great, but I think is probably a pretty small corner of the market. It's folks who are usually often making things in their homes, making things like jewelry or home goods. But I get the feeling that both of you are talking about broader industrial applications and ways that you can be innovative within businesses and maybe even altering machines that already exist. So where, what kind of sectors of the economy do you think show up most come through your doors? And where have you seen a lot of innovation and a lot of human energy towards making products? At TechShop, it's really across the board. You've got automotive stuff. You've got medical device developers. You've got, you know, people making things on Kickstarter. Tons of people making things for Etsy and eBay and making either all a part of their living that way just from what they can do at TechShop. And then of course, you know, spinning up whole businesses and either licensing those out or farming their own facilities. We have a pretty strong, and part of it's just a function of what's in the area and what degree programs we have. So we have great interest in gaming. Game development is probably the thing that we're seeing most driven really from the student interest level, mobile apps. So I had a freshman come in this year whose whole concept is to crowdsource ideas for apps and then spend it out to the software engineering students to build it for them. And then hopefully their plan is they'll launch businesses doing this with each other. But we have everything from medical devices to really fairly significant work that ultimately are piece part componentry that goes into aerospace and defense. But a lot of software development really is where we're seeing, especially from a DIY perspective and what the students do. And I think that what's kind of interesting about both the school and the business here is that they're both kind of filling this gap in the market that needed to be filled, right? There were folks who wanted to create things but maybe didn't want to hire a company to do it for them and needed to be able to mess up and kind of play with the tools. Or there is a gap between getting an academic education and being able to have actual business or actual technical skills outside. So do you think that there's going to be more space in this arena? Do you see more linkages, especially between companies and other companies, between students and businesses? I can imagine also the government might be interested in this sort of thing. Are people recognizing this as a problem? Or a space, a problem is the wrong word. Space that needs to be felt. And it is a problem. And yes, I think that there is recognition. I don't think that we've honed in on a solution yet. Right now there's a lot of focus on K-12 talking about STEM education. And you don't actually see very much of a maker mentality yet in K-12. I think at the universities we see more of it. But again, we're lacking too. It depends on the discipline, right? Very much so where you see it at the university level. And so there is a huge need. And interestingly enough, there's a huge hunger for it. And yet we still have standard curricula that are defined as such. And a degree is defined as such. So that's why it's picking up in very large part as an outside, as a hobby. And instead we should be embedding it. And I think that there are lots of things that we're seeing. You see camps. That's the thing I keep hearing about a lot. Summer camps after school programs for kids that are in school. Hobbyists, right? And so on. But it's really not something that's embedded. And as a result, then we stand around and keep asking why we have the same problems. So we are seeing a few people starting to drive change. But it's been a slow roll. Actually, so tell me about battle bots a little bit. It seems like this is actually like a probably good way to start and a fun way to get into doing this. So a hobby that blends all kinds of different disciplines together. Mechanical design, electricity, motors, material strength, electronics for the programming, and all that. Yeah, it's a really well-rounded hobby. And are there other options like that out there that you think that people should focus on? And are there other points of entry for people who are maybe starting to think about doing this and maybe don't know a lot about them? I always tell people, just take a class in one of the machines that you're interested in. And that gives you that little bit of confidence. And you start making some, you take the laser cutter class, and you start making some little gifts for your friend's wedding. And then you think, what else could I use here? What's this machine? What's this? And you see other projects and things that people have done, and you want to explore that more. So I think just getting them, coaxing them into the maker movement, just to try something to be a maker oftentimes is enough to get them really deep into it. But I'll make one more comment of something that I think that we need to pay attention to. And BattleBots reminded me of that, which is, so we do a lot of summer camps for kids, and they're all hands-on. So you leave having built something. So we tried something this last year, and it was a little bit of a natural experiment. It turned out not unlike what we expected. Robots fascinate a lot of people, but there is also a gender divide of what kids might be interested in. So we did two robot camps. We did robot wars, which is basically BattleBots, except we use really small robots. And they're pushing each other outside of a circle. And then we did robot art, where you teach the robot to paint. Guess what girls chose versus boys chose? Robot art versus robot wars. And that's actually important, because there are some other, there's some really important and interesting initiatives that are going on nationwide to try to bring the maker movement and also an interest in design and building to high schools. Like Project Lead the Way. Many of you may be familiar with Project Lead the Way, which is a freshman through senior, high school, basically engineering, pre-engineering type curriculum, where they're building things. But so I went to visit a high school in Arizona before coming here, and I visited the senior class, and the senior class had two girls that had persisted, and you can't get to the senior class without persisting all four years. Two girls out of 40, and I visited the freshman class that came in, which also had 40 kids, and there were two girls. And so the reasons and the motivations of what drives young women versus men, and what their interests are, and whether or not they'll even start in engineering or stay are very different. And it was funny because they don't get to choose what they do until they're seniors. As freshmen, and I looked at all the projects they were gonna be working on for the year, and they started out, and you had to design a train, then you had to design a rocket. And the boys loved it, it was fantastic. And the girls were, you know, and I asked them, why do you think you're excited about this? No, but what we're excited about is that when we're in your seniors, we get to pick what we do. And I asked the seniors what they were doing presentations on their capstone. And the boys had all designed things and stuff. They all designed things, but the two girls that had persisted had designed a water filtration system for a village in Africa. Okay, and so not a surprise, right? But that was when they finally got to choose. Meanwhile, they were bored and only two stayed. And the other 38 were boys, and that's a problem given that where our population demographics are, that means we're leaving off about half of the population and not encouraging them to persist and or even pursue these fields. So I think there's a lots of fun and one of the most exciting ones that I recently saw was a cake building competition, which actually requires a lot of engineering as well as chemistry, but they're building, using cakes and you had to construct a bridge out of cakes. So it was actually an interesting problem and not surprisingly it attracted all young women. So there are some interesting competitions I think that and exciting things that we can do through organizations that will appeal to young women and we need to do that as well. It's fascinating because there's like a lot of, there's a lot of concern that once folks get into college and elect STEM majors that there's a really high dropout, right? And so I think that one of the common arguments is that STEM is harder than other sort of, than English or something else like that. I personally tend to fall on the side of thinking that it's probably not harder, but when you're being graded quantitatively, it's gonna be easier to show up that you haven't done your work than if you're being graded qualitatively, but there's a little bit more room to fudge. But nevertheless, do you think that, what are some of the ways that you think that for folks who are learning about this, either within an academic setting or once they're at the professional level, to make this more engaging, to make this more fun, how much it is actually doing while learning have to do with that and are there other kind of like obvious places to start there? I think doing while learning has everything to do with it. I mean, if you're an English major, guess what you're doing when you're a freshman? You're probably writing, right? If you're a journalism major, you're probably writing. If you're, I don't know what else, what's another liberal arts degree? If you're learning Spanish, you're probably speaking Spanish, right? So the problem is, you're right. One, STEM disciplines are hard. I don't know that, I don't know that I think that they're harder necessarily, or that's how you're graded. I think it's that the way we, especially at the university level, we don't have you doing anything until you get past all these courses that are, there seems to be an attitude of, well, we'll weed you out, right? And I've said this in other forums. I think that's stupid because there also are a lot of intelligent ways that we can provide support to help people learn the math and to move on when ready. There are some excellent support systems that have been built out of Carnegie Mellon, for example, that use artificial intelligence or intelligent tutors to support the learning of math and to advance people's math competency. And we don't make much use of those things, right? So then as a result, people will fail. And depending on who you are, you think, well, I'm stupid, I can't do that. I'll choose, and I'm not gonna name a major because it would offend somebody. Something else, I'll choose something else. And so then they leave, right? So one way to keep them is, and there's a different way of teaching. What if what you're doing is teaching the principle that you need in the context of something that was more interesting than just a formula, right? So we did a program, we did a class sponsored by Fender Guitar and we called it Music and Engineering. It was fascinating to see who came and flocked to the class. The class was really about teaching basic electrical principles and the transfer of mechanical action into electrical signal, right? That's what an electric guitar does and it's acoustics. And so they had to learn what they had to learn and we could have done it by teaching electrical engineering 101 and MechE 101 and done it through formulas and problems in the back of the book or we could make them build an electric guitar and the amplifier that goes with it. And then guess what? There's a formula that predicts you could do it by a million trial and error or you could actually use the formula and tune your guitar and make it work and signal properly into the amplifier. They loved it, right? And they just had someone give a presentation last week, one of the kids that worked on it and he, at the presentation, it was part of Maker Week. I'll have to tell you about Maker Week later. And thank you for the Maker Mini Fair, it was fantastic. So he held the guitar up and he was telling all these freshmen in high school, I built a guitar, this is how I learned, you know, electrical engineering. He was really motivated because the context was not a problem but it was because he got to do something and he could see why it mattered then. So that's what I think the issue is in terms of how we're teaching. And Jim, do you think that there's other ways that we could be sort of getting more folks to do it and bringing more people in? I know that we talked a little bit about Battlebats which I think is actually probably a pretty great way to do it, but I don't know, in your experience, where else, you know, where are those entry points? I think if you wrap innovation in recreation then it really is cool and fun for people to get into it and they accept it more. If you position it as STEM, there's this barrier, you know, it's educational, it's good for you, it's educational, you know. So that's the method we use at TechShop to get people really engaged and it works really well. And so what are some examples of how, because I know that you guys do workshops and sort of reach outside and get more people involved in that way. So can you give us an example of one of those that's been particularly successful or particularly fun? We do a lot of team building events. So we'll have a company come in and they'll learn how to build sumo bots and push them off and then they'll go off into the lab into the welding shop and they'll weld name business card holders and then they'll go to the laser lab and then grave their names or business name, you know, company on mugs and then they go have beer in the conference room, you know. You position it as a fun activity. And do you think that it's, have folks who might work in a company that makes something so, you know, tech firm, car firm, somebody else, have you found that it helps to have people and elsewhere in the organization understand the actual technical processes of how things getting made? Yeah, but I think exposing other people to your problem was mentioned before. And how can you solve these problems with using other people's experience? We're working with a lot of companies and organizations now to open tech shops, like Todd mentioned, to open tech shops near companies like Ford, we're gonna be doing one here in Arlington, so that their engineers can interact with just everyday people and engineers from other companies that happen to be there as members, right? So I think we're gonna take a couple of questions from the audience. If anybody has questions, I think we have a mic someplace. Yeah, go ahead. I have a banding here from the Atlantic Council. One of the things that strikes me here, looking at 3D printing, and I'm wondering if this fits actual experience because it would seem to me that 3D printing is a step beyond software development because it's cool to write a little program and then you run it, but what if you could design something and then pops out of a printer in three dimensions, it's real. But does this lead, it would seem to me to lead to a real interest in engineering and design. I mean, if you were sort of designer and you could come up with this thing in your head and you could build this cool looking shape and you print it out, then you might have to learn about engineering to actually make it work properly and be structurally sound and so you get interested in learning engineering. And if you're an engineer, maybe you get really interested in design, how cool, beautiful something could be, but do you see that this kind of process of building something like that leads you to want to understand the engineering behind it so you can make it better, make it sound, make it work because maybe it fails a few times, doesn't structurally it falls apart because it wasn't really a sound design. Do you see that process? And one other question, just particularly for Annie, it strikes me that we who do, and I'm a, you know, I wouldn't call it political scientists because that's like an oxymoron, but and there may be a lot of morons in political science too, but you know, who was a writer. It seems to me writers learn about failure all the time. I mean, you have editors and you read it yourself and you're like this doesn't work. Maybe it's conceptual, maybe it's the writing itself, but the idea of that you failed as a project process of learning is very, that's what we do. I mean, that's how we learn to get better, but we don't transfer that into science and math and technology in the same way where that's, you know, obviously part of the process. So maybe there's a parallel there that we haven't really appreciated enough and transferred. I don't know. You can go read all of my, my failed articles are all online. If you can go find those. Anyway. I would say that you're exactly right, right? What you're talking about is in the engineering world, you're talking about prototyping and the reality is that the first time a lot of college engineering students prototype is in their capstone project, their senior year. And we wonder why they fall, why we drop off between freshman and sophomore year at about a rate of 60%. So that's not out of college, but they transfer to one of those other degrees that shall remain nameless, right? So I'm not gonna say it. So yeah, it's absolutely, it's important. And that's why, and rapid prototyping, does it help? Sure, because it's your first chance and it's cheap, that's cheap failure relative to some other way that you might do it. So that's critical. But you get people interested in wanting to learn engineering because they, you know, they were screwed around making these things in high school or whatever. Then they forgot to make it sound. We do, it's a huge recruiting tool. We teach in a different way too. All of our engineering program is taught in studios, right? So you're in a prototyping shop. Essentially that's where it's all taught. So it's a huge recruiting tool to get them there to see where they're gonna get to go to school and all the stuff sitting around, which is on display. And you get to start doing this for a semester freshman year. So absolutely, it's a huge advantage. I've also thought, you know, speaking to the gender gap that you were talking before, I think that it's gotta be a good way to bridge it and to show that so much of this is just, you know, maybe cultural and maybe a lie, right? That the girls like to make things with clay and pottery and boys like to make things in wood with wood shop. It's just, you know, it's just crazy to think that those are two different things when you're working from the same principles and like working very much towards the same outcome and in a lot of cases. But anyway, the gentleman sitting right over here, hey. All right, thank you. So I was a computer science major and undergraduate. So I've experienced a lot of this firsthand. And there are a couple of questions I have. First of all, I don't think, do you think that this sort of innovation or change needs to just ends at the educational area? Because, I mean, I speak to my own, you know, job experiences and employment experiences and the sorts of, you know, the sorts of things that they're looking for. It seems that they are very kind of looking for hyper-specific type of focus, which, you know, coming from a majority of computer science programs is just not going to be feasible in terms of knowing these specific technologies in this specific sort of way. So it seems to me that there's also a sort of a maker-oriented thing that should shift on the employer's side to say, well, you know, we need to kind of give a more general sort of thing, sort of general sorts of requirements and let them kind of fill in the gaps where they need to. The other question I have about these sorts of engineering programs is how much it teaches lateral thinking. I'm currently in a graduate program at Georgetown University, which is highly interdisciplinary. So it means that when you come out, you can kind of be prepared for any number of sorts of works. You know, say someone, you know, even completes the engineering program and decides they don't want to be an engineer. You know, I'm moving into public policy now, for example. So what sorts of, how can we combine these sorts of hands-on engineering with sorts of interdisciplinary thought patterns? And I'll get them preparing them for a multitude of experiences that may come after college. So one way is that you change the structure of how you do things and the projects that I described, you make them interdisciplinary. And in fact, that's a flaw of, again, a lot of programs that are very siloed. So they're only engineering or maybe they're different flavors of engineering, which is still just engineering. So one of the ways you do that is that you force those projects to work across disciplines. And in fact, that's the reality. Most companies who produce anything of value, it's not produced based on and only including one discipline. So in our college, we have engineering programs, science programs, as well as management programs. So I'm working on, just to give you one example, and shall I give my example, because Audrey loves when I give this example, we have a project going on right now where the students are developing a bio-digester that takes biomass, converts it to methane gas, and powers a light in a park. So specifically, it's in a dog park and it's dog waste or as the students named it, the ETERD project. So it includes biologists, engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers, and as well as psychology students who are working on the problem and the piece of how do you engage people to get involved in the solution, how do you communicate that and what's the cognitive problem. So the reality is we need to be doing that and that is what real problems force you to do. Even the examples that you gave are all about how do you solve a problem with whatever discipline is necessary. So it's not just one thing and it's not just engineering. But everything I've talked about actually applies to any discipline, including liberal arts. And I forgot the first question. Don't speak to that one. I think learning is a lifelong skill. So it's not so much about that this is only a college thing. In my view, as it goes on from there, obviously businesses have real output and next quarter results to make. So they have real targets. But obviously the way we do that as employees is you have to always be learning so that you're adding value to the organization as the value they need to generate. One thing I would also note to that question, just because this comes to some stuff that I've been reading about recently and just because there's been this whole big push for manufacturing from the White House is that the economic research that they have to support this and to support why you should have more people making things here where there's usually not a compelling economic case for it is that there's just huge spillovers that if you're making something here that it's not just the people who are making it but people who are working with them that tend to accrue some benefits like almost magically just by being around it. And there's a lot of ways that that transference happens but that seems to imply to me that even among companies where you did have a manufacturing element and maybe that was siloed from the rest of the company that even just exposing other employees or the other companies that you're working with can be like a pretty powerful, powerful thing. And something that people definitely think about and there's a pretty big body of research about. So that's that and I think I'll take another question. Yeah, go ahead ma'am. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, my name's Lee Young. I would like to know about the cost of benefits to students like whether they have to pay the fee or they receive the wages and whether government pay to the university of schools or university of schools have to pay to the businesses or whoever participate in just a partnership. So I speak on our side for projects. The projects that we do are sponsored by companies. Some of them are sponsored by companies which makes sense because in our case the IP belongs to the company, they retain the IP rights so they're paying for real engineering, real design work. In some cases we have students who bring their own ideas and they want to work on their project and in that case we do competitive funding to support the student, seed fund the student to initiate their project and go forward and then of course the IP belongs to the student. So in our case we have sponsored projects and non-sponsored projects. Oh, sorry. To the student if they've invented it and the university ownership is a very clear line. It's if faculty and or graduate students have been involved in the design or the development of whatever the intellectual property might be. So on our industry sponsored projects faculty act as mentors, coaches and guides but do not contribute to the intellectual design so that we don't have intellectual property conflict. Easier that way. So I think we have time for one more question maybe in the middle right there. Yeah. I'm talk to, this is kind of the conversation I've been waiting for. But I'm looking at the other end at K through 12 education and I've been doing some work with students. I am not an engineer. I did one of those other degrees. Mainly because I didn't think I was smart enough to be an engineer. But we've been doing work with Arduino and I think it's right. The hands-on, the problem solving just is incredibly, incredibly important and people who aren't learning in other ways aren't learning in their traditional classes or just excelling at these Arduino projects and I'm learning from them. I have students now teaching me programming languages so that we can do this. And the one thing I wanna ask you guys, there's one comment I wanna make and one thing I wanna ask is, I also think that when we talk about STEM there's the big STEM steam kind of debate and I really think we have to talk about the arts here too because the interdisciplinary nature of this really puts the STEM in a silo and you have especially girls but boys too who see this as kind of the sciences and the technical stuff and that's not what I'm about. I'm about something else. So I really think we really need to start talking about the arts and steam as opposed to STEM. The question I have of you two is at the K through 12 level if you're going to put these kind of technologies in the school, what is your best, what are the technologies we should be putting in the schools to do this? What is it and what should we have being done? I'm working with Arduino, I'm learning so much but what are those technologies that we need to be pulling into the schools and to make them integrated into the whole system as opposed to kind of these little robot projects that my kids do off to the side, that kind of stuff. Can I go ahead? I think you could start by just putting the shock classes back in high schools. Almost all the high school shock classes are gone now and not very many people realize that that's been removed. So I think even just basic stuff, just working with Adams, working with software to program things like Arduino's. Dale's got a program up in Sebastopol that's very successful getting kids in as a class about making. It's not a shop class but it's like it's a making class. I think that's a great place to start. I agree, I would require shop and I'd require programming. That's what I would do if I could fix it but. No one gave me a wand. That sounds great. Well, I'd like to thank both of my guests so much and thank everybody for listening. This is great, such an important topic. Thanks so much.