 question as resources, how do we manage increasing numbers of students with out-compromising quality? I think this is a place where we have a really hard problem, and that means we have to fundamentally change a lot of the delivery models that we have now. And we've got to talk about the P word, productivity, academic productivity, both in the sense of productivity of the learner, learning faster, learning better, productivity of the faculty member, being able to actually teach, I'll say it, teach more students than they are now without it taking more of their time. And this really is a place where the confluence of the technologies that we deliver and the knowledge that we're getting from the learning sciences can make a huge difference in transforming how we educate students. And frankly, there have been very, very few institutional efforts to do that kind of transformation. And sadly, I see this actually happening in the current economic crisis. I think we are in fact wasting a crisis because I don't see a lot of institutions making sort of fundamental change in delivery. And ultimately, to provide that access, we're going to have to make those fundamental changes. How flexible is higher ed? And how do we become more flexible? I actually think higher ed is in some ways quite flexible, but we also know very, very state in other ways. The fact that we have found ways to deal with and contend with and thrive in an environment where students come in every year with a whole different set of expectations, where our jobs over the last decade in the IT profession have changed from identifying systems and providing them to figuring out how do we integrate and support this wide array of consumer technologies. So I actually think in some ways we're very flexible. I'll just leave it there. I'll stick with the positive. So to take a different view on things, I see flexibility in some of the apparatus that support things. On the other hand, a notable failure in my view, and that's think about the reward and recognition systems, namely embodied as it is in tenure. So where we have tremendous transformation in terms of scholarly communication and we have faculty departments still asking whether or not electronic publications count, where is the book instead of, you know, a set of virtual activity that has occurred and so forth. The model, which in many ways is the lynchpin, I think has been pretty much stuck in the mud. So I would agree that in many ways we're, you know, we are incredibly flexible. And I think there are places, though, in terms of the way we have done things, you know, for years. And just in the face of a good deal of data about this is not working, we have a really hard time changing. I mean, let me give you an example, which I think is very relevant to the current, you know, national scene. And that is if you look at the issue of developmental courses that students have to take, you know, either to get into a state system or to get into a community college system, it's not working. It's fundamentally broken. I mean, 80, you know, somewhere in the vicinity of 70 to 80 percent of students who are assigned to take those courses never actually succeed in getting through. And yet there seem to be very few innovative experiments or concerted efforts to say, I mean, we actually understand pretty well why most of the students don't even take the first course because they're looking at three courses that they would have to take before they take the first course that they really want to take. And we've always done it that way, right? I mean, and we can manage that and sort of, you know, it's comfortable. Why aren't we fundamentally changing that? So I think you find places like that where we are also ossified.