 Okay, visionary, commissioner, founder, CEO, leader, just a few of the titles that Heather Hiles has held. Ms. Hiles has led several organizations including the San Francisco Unified School District, Silicon Valley Venture Fund and PathBright, which she also founded. She has also served her community on the boards of such organizations as Communities United Against Violence and the AIDS Legal Referral Panel. Please join me in welcoming Heather Hiles, Deputy Director of Post-Secondary Student Success at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Oh, also, it's the one o'clock. Hi, thank you. Thank you for having me this afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. What I wanted to talk with you about is what we're up to at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and I'll get into a little bit of detail about what it is that we're funding and looking at. And then I'm really looking forward to a Q and A session where I can answer your questions. So if you have some that build up while I'm speaking, please note them down and we can get into that. It's much more interesting than listening to me speak about myself. So I have 25 years of experience in education, a lot of it, having spent in the K-12 space. I am a former school board commissioner at San Francisco Unified, served on the board of a set of charter high schools for eight years. My whole job while I was working my way through undergraduate at UC Berkeley was running a tutorial program for kindergarten through third graders. I've run a job training program with high school kids and in the 90s I actually built training programs to get women from welfare into careers and that was some of the most fulfilling work I've ever done and as was said, most recently prior to joining the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I spent time building up a digital e-portfolio platform called Pathbright, which has about five million-ish, mostly college students on the platform who are all looking to tell their stories of achievement and learning to employers and to their professors and such. The reason that I was called, I think, to join the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is that there is a deep, deep-rooted commitment on behalf of Bill and Melinda to help people who have until now been disenfranchised and not succeeded in pursuing and achieving their academic as well as their professional goals. I'll tell you more specifically what that looks like and what we're doing, but I just wanted you to know from where I come in helping people, I've committed my whole life to helping people realize their academic and their professional goals, so I'm a good fit, I think, for the Foundation and vice versa. These little baby turtles inspire me, so I never miss an opportunity to show their pictures. But the scene here is that these little creatures, once they hatch from the eggs, if you're not familiar, they've gotta make it down to the ocean in order to survive and thrive. And along the way, you know, these big birds swoop down and take them out and eat them. They don't know which direction they're going in, really, they just instinctively know to get down to the ocean and they have no idea what's ahead of them once they actually reach the ocean. That's where the real adventure begins. And these little baby turtles, I think of as the people who are trying to succeed in acquiring some skills so that they can succeed in life and take care and provide for their families and themselves. And our goal at the Foundation is to help those people who have historically not been successful by themselves because they haven't had the resources that some of us have been able to draw on. And so that's just mindset-wise, that's where I come from. The vision specifically in the post-secondary success as part of the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation where I work is that we want to work with our partners to help about 11 million people by the year 2025 be prepared for new economy jobs. So the 11 million number actually comes from economists who believe there will be a gap and there will be 11 million people who do not if things go as usual who will not be prepared for new economy jobs. And I think we see every day and how many people are already disenfranchised but it seems like that gap between the opportunities as the nature of work changes is growing wider rather than getting smaller. And so we know that there are about 4.3 million people. We look at a lot of data over at the Foundation about 4.3 million people who are dropping out of two year and four year institutions right now that we could with lots of interventions which we'll call solutions over at the Foundation who with a little bit of extra support hopefully can complete and obtain their credentials. And then there are about another five and some changed million people who probably won't attend any college or university but who are still needing to upgrade or acquire new skills in order to be ready for career well-paying jobs by the year 2025. And so we're also looking beyond college and universities at what are the other kinds of new trending new opportunities for acquiring skills for these jobs. And so that's what I am responsible for. My portfolio is called Solutions for that very reason. And I won't bore you with a lot of data but I will say this is a striking number for me. Only 11% of employers really believe that graduating undergraduates who complete college are prepared for even entry level jobs. So they don't seem to have a big connection or a lot of faith into what our students are learning in colleges and universities right now. And those are the people who actually get the credentials. So I think we have a lot of work to do and I really appreciate that the community here is thinking about the connections between education, skills acquisition and actual work because that's my passionate area. That's my point of passion as well. But I think that that's, I think it's the more we can have the joint conversations about education, skills development and the world of work and what that looks like the better. Within my portfolio specifically and the solutions that I was gonna drill down into today are primarily regarding the college and university interventions or solutions that we have data and believe in that will help our students succeed and complete. So the biggest ones that we focus on include digital learning, developmental education, what we call student services which is advising plus financial security. So that includes financial aid packaging. It includes emergency aid, work study and then transfer. Regarding digital learning, we have recently done a lot of return on investment studies to understand what are best practices around digital learning supports at an institutional level and what kind of impact can they have on those most disenfranchised, highest status students that I just discussed and were squarely focused on. And some of the findings that I think are really important to be aware of are not always popular amongst leadership and faculty at an institution but nonetheless have really proven themselves to be important. Number one is that thinking about digital learning offerings for students who come onto campus but have access to what we call mixed modality offerings or online courses as they need them is really important to the majority of our students who are employed have families need flexibility. We find that on average students who have access to online courses to supplement their in-class experiences complete on average one semester faster. And while maintaining the exact same grades and sometimes in some cases improving their A, B and C level grades. And that's not someone popular but what becomes unpopular is the also the notion that if you get a standardized curriculum that is delivered for gen ed courses you have reliability around the outcomes that you don't see if each faculty member is selecting their own courses. And so administrators will receive a lot of flack for suggesting that they're taking away any of the autonomy of individual faculty but the data are showing that if you make institutional level decisions on curriculum and you have that and it can be a master course created by a faculty member who's the dean of the mathematics department and people get to refine it every year or whenever that's fine but just having one standardized curriculum that everybody uses really works. And so you can draw an OER content can draw on third party created curriculum or master content created by faculty. That's really not the main point. By providing online courses we also find that especially for your institutions where they've had tenure faculty teaching gen ed courses realize a lot of savings at the institutional level. One because usually adjunct faculty are the ones teaching the online courses. And then secondly they don't have all the expenses that come with having in-person courses, classrooms, the operating expenses. But we have found like I said, a lot of return on investment also at two year institutions especially for the students who complete faster so they need less financial aid. They're more likely to complete. And what I will say is also at the foundation we are looking at two different kinds of goals. One is what can we do to realize the opportunity for return on investment for the student and for the institution. And we're also looking at so what technologies are actually scalable and usable and reliable. And then we're also looking in another kind of area at what are the innovations in online learning, perhaps inquiry based virtual reality or augmented reality. What are new kinds of digital learning experiences that are even more engaging for our students? So those are two separate kinds of goals that we're driving towards both of those within the foundation. Another really important area for our students who have not been successful in the past is regarding developmental education. And within the developmental education we're looking at a number of best practices ranging from pedagogy to supports for the student in terms of better tutoring and such, redesigned placement. We know that historically and currently minorities underrepresented minorities typically test in a poorer way and so they are more likely to get placed into remedial courses and that remedial math, dev ed math is the biggest loss point of those same students. We're also looking at what we call co-requisite design meaning compressed courses where you have credit bearing courses additive to remedial courses so that people continue on the path and they're not taking a semester or a year's worth of non-credit bearing courses. And then there are really powerful innovations around math and English pathways that stimulate and help connect students to understanding the relevance of their trajectories of what they need to master in English and math. And there are fantastic models around the country and I brought some notes up here just to remember to call out some of them but from a pedagogy perspective the ramp up math program at Middlesex Community College seeing fantastic outcomes with their Emporium model where they've got kind of like a computer lab bigger than this and they've got sort of a flip model rotating and circulating tutors helping people succeed on their own through online courses. From the supports perspective and I'll talk a little bit more about advising in a minute but CUNY's ASAP program extremely powerful in connecting, advising with remediation and program planning and financial incentives. Around placement, both Long Beach Community College and Central Piedmont Community College have seen 15 point increases, percentage point increases in the progress of successful transfers from the two year to the four year. And Tennessee Community College with their compressed paths are seeing as much as 40 percentage point increases in their completion of the gateway math courses as a result of their redesigns. So there's a lot of good stuff happening out there. Part of our role at the foundation is to help organize and synthesize and prioritize and then disseminate the information about what we're learning. And actually in that regard we are within my group we're putting up what we're calling a knowledge management platform that will be available to the entire field to find and access all of the reports, case studies, implementation guides, best practices, product indexes all of these resources that we've invested in for years and make them available to the entire higher ed field. So that will be live and really I think robust by the beginning of 2018. It is now being used in a lot of testing areas as we start to post more assets and we have institutions posting learning logs and starting to build communities of practice right now. From the student services perspective I'm a huge advocate for it as is the whole foundation regarding holistic advising. And what that means to me is first of all thinking about kind of the framework that a lot of us have adopted around guided pathways which is really a framework to describe the student journey and to acknowledge that on the front end in order to get a student engaged he or she really needs to have a vision for what kind of career trajectory they're looking for. And as a result, what kinds of educational programs do they need to avail themselves of? And then a plan around what kind of financial aid supports do they require in order to obtain that education? And all the while making sure that there are the right kinds of supports provided by people at the right time from an academic perspective and from a financial aid perspective and from a life skills perspective to keep that student successful. And where we're seeing obviously the biggest cost in the area of advising is the human capital. What we're hoping is that as we see certain platforms start to evolve there'll be a consolidation of the right data that someone needs to access in order to be a good advisor and that we can optimize the time and the kind of interaction at the right time for the right student. And seeing a more career information fed on the front end of advising and on an ongoing basis. And then also seeing more of the financial aid data when a student is in jeopardy or if they need some other kinds of supports also interacting with their academic data so that we know whatever kind of crisis the students are coming up against that somebody can help them guide them through the process is very important. Another big, another important solution that I've alluded to is the transfer process. We see so many people who are close to completing two-year experience and unfortunately they'll take a lot of the wrong courses that don't get and they don't get credit against their four-year degree. And a lot of sloppy if you will transfer articulation from the two-year to the four-year and a lot of people get lost along the way. A lot of turtles get moving in the wrong direction. And so that is another area where we continuously look for opportunities to help bridge some gaps. I'll go back to this for a second. What I will say is that we are looking to provide, like I said earlier, information to the industry as we can organize it by different best practices and different players all throughout the country. And so you can imagine that even though we have a pretty robust team at the foundation we're just small players in a very enormous and ever-changing arena. So how I would define each of the solutions where we see the best and highest impact opportunities will vary by the type of institution, will vary by the geography, will vary and evolve over time. And so this is really a live body of work that we continue to work every day. And so that's what we're doing over at the post-secondary group within the Gates Foundation. So I hope that that was a helpful overview and I would love to get in dialogue to answer any of your questions. Thank you. And while microphones are, I hope you guys have some kind of questions, while microphones are circulating, what I will add is we're working on a separate evidence base that is much more nascent and hasn't been fully adopted, but we see a lot of trends in new models of training that are, like I said, really built for people who either need a still a better bridge from the educational experience into the job market or are supplemental to a credential or are for some people a fine alternative to a credential. And so there are a lot of new kinds of models that we get to experiment with and observe and track. And I think we'll be kind of a new body of alternatives that we will be starting to more robustly invested in those new training programs. Apprenticeship programs are back, which I'm delighted about. There are some good staffing company kinds of models where people do a little bit, where the companies do a little bit more specific skills training and then place people directly into jobs. And then there are some just some focused technical skills training. So for example, if you used to do sales at Marshall's, but you could do software sales, you might be making $100,000 or more a year by doing sales and software. And so we want people to avail themselves of the kinds of technical training if that is going to improve their career outlook as well. Yep, hi. Hi, Heather. So thanks for the presentation. At the beginning you talked about the physical infrastructure versus the cost of taking classes online and that kind of stuff. Do you have any numbers in terms of how much an institution could save by starting to offer some of these online classes and what are the figures that would go with that? Yeah, we have actually a lot of data and I don't carry it all around with me nor have I memorized all of it. But for example, at an institution like UCF, University of Central Florida, that four year institution is seeing on the order of half a million dollars a year of savings for certain courses. And so it really can sort of add up. And it really does matter, like I said, with four years, they've seemed to have more savings in the long run in that they have more adjunct faculty and others to leverage in a different kind of way. But we look at the return on investment, we look at it for the institution, for faculty and for the student, and we think about what are the value propositions for them because also I just want to point out that a savings for an institution does not necessarily mean savings for the student. And so we want to be clear about the differences and I'd be happy to share with this community the data. It will be up live on our site soon, but in the interim, I'm happy to give you the facts and figures for different kinds of institutions. We look at two year institutions, we're looking at what we call sort of lean and more stealth smaller four year institutions. And then we're looking at, there are a couple of a few of the really big ones, like the UCF and ASU and others. And we try to put them in kind of different categories so that similar kind of organizations can figure out which are we most like in terms of geography and dynamics and where could the biggest returns be had. So I'm happy to make sure that you get more concrete data. Yes. Hi, Chris Thurkin. Hi. Thanks for this helpful overview. I'm thinking about your numbers, the 11 million adults who will go uncredentialed or go lacking in jobs in the future economy, five million. So I'm thinking about how do you guys, how do you at Gates segment the learner market in terms of the more traditional student, the older adult learner, maybe the 25 plus, 30 plus, recredentialing, undercredentialed and where is your, has your focus changed at the foundation and what do you expect to focus on going forward? So we do focus, I'd say exclusively actually, on underrepresented minorities, low income folks and first generation students. So we're looking at the most disenfranchised and those people who without other interventions are going to drop out. And so for now at least that's our focus is the most at risk. And the breakout, we do a lot of modeling. There are a lot of economists who do modeling that work that we avail ourselves of to break out the various sections and demographics of the college student today. I decided this was an eye chart so I was just gonna skip right on over it. Again, we could share with you lots of models that help segment out the different types. But we know things like, we know information like over 70% of our students that we target are working while they're in school. We know that the majority are low income and the majority are, or a lot of them are working poor. We only focus on public institutions. That's another cut that I should share. And we prioritize institutions that serve, where the majority of their students are Pell Grant recipients, et cetera. Hi, Goldie. We didn't get enough time today this morning, huh? Hi, I'm Goldie Blumenstik from the Chronicle of Higher Education. You talked about the transfer pathway. I think officially people kind of know things that work. They know about sort of the pathway program. They know about articulation agreements and they know about sort of structuring this, these kind of transfer pathways through catchment areas between four year institutions and two year institutions. And we've kind of known this for years. So I guess I'm wondering, what is it about the system that keeps these programs from working as effectively as they could be in most places? Right, I think I have a back end answer and a front end answer. I like to get into the operations on the back end. That's just more of my personal comfort zone. But we know that there are a lot of inefficient processes, literally people processing paperwork of who gets processed and admitted and enrolled faster than other students. We know that there are a lot of, I think we know there have been so many redundancies and kind of manual processes to make sure that a student actually will get credit for the courses they've already taken that just shouldn't exist. They should just be cleaned up and there's a lot of should-ofs in the world that just don't get, you know, show themselves. So I think that that's a lot of the transfer you're right. There's not any kind of brilliant, you know, missed technology opportunities, I wouldn't say. I would say we have all the tools available to us and we have especially kind of with the lower case of policy that is created within systems that could really make the wheelhouse run better if there were some standardization and some rigor around what gets accepted, how it's communicated to advisors and to students early on. I will say one of the trends of technology is providing more real-time information to the students around financial aid, around degree planning, around what credit-bearing courses they must take in order to be on path to complete and on time different programs. And all of that information, if you can find ways to deliver it in a way that is consumable, easily consumable for the student and real-time available to them as they're making decisions, I think the better. And so I am very optimistic and I do think that that's a place where a lot of artificial intelligence, a lot of technology that sends the information to students right in the right time, you must get your former transcripts or whatever piece of information over the summer to the institution before you're able to get enrolled or you have to get your shots, whatever the things are, to get your financial aid. All of these kinds of information sent to the student at the right time really can be automated and really can take out the human error kinds of areas. So I would say that there's a lot of low-hanging fruit just in having good operations, having good agreements within systems and then better availing ourselves of better technologies to inform and prompt the student to take the right steps at the right time. Does that help? What's that? Technologies aren't free? No, they are not. And for an institution, if they deploy the right technology, the notion is that they will retain more students and they will be more self-sustaining because it's very expensive for an institution to have to replace a student who has dropped out. So if you can actually avail yourselves of technology that helps students be more successful and complete, you should be able to run in the black as an institution better than if you're losing so many students and having to replace them. So that's the big theory and that's why we even care about a return on investment is to show institutions that if you make these changes you will, more of your students will succeed and you will do better financially. I think there's a person here. Okay, go ahead. There's a mic. Hi Heather, my name is Kate Cazan and I enjoyed your presentation. I just moved to Seattle so I think about the Gates Foundation often. And I went in the tail end of the previous administration to a really wonderful day that the Foundation helped sponsor called Remedying Remediation. And one of the most powerful things about it was that it started with the students. And these were all students who were quote successful but who had nonetheless come through developmental education. And the definition of successful in their case was that they had come through developmental education and gone on. What I'm struck by and I'm wondering how you all think about this is to what extent fixing developmental education so more people pass through it is I don't wanna say deck chairs on the Titanic but it's in some sense continuing what is really not only demoralizing but sort of systemically, I would say oppresses students of color, low income students, and even making it more efficient doesn't necessarily get at that the idea is not to fix developmental education. The idea is to give students support they need to be successful in college. And in my mantra is always label skills not students. And I'm just wondering to what extent since I understand some of this was informed by people doing work in developmental education whether you're sort of hearing from the adherence to the faith as opposed to people who are kind of loyal questioners. And I wondered if you could talk a little bit about whether that's a dilemma or attention for you all and how you resolve it. Yeah, it's a personal dilemma actually so I appreciate the question. I feel like there is a lot of historical stigma and real time stigma that comes with being labeled the developmental student. And I'm really disinterested in your age, your gender, your grade. I just want you to have the best learning experience that works for you. And that's why I see a lot of the opportunity especially in digital learning to bring that to fruition. So actually even organizationally within my group I'm having a very delicate dance of trying to bridge more of what we call historically developmental education best practices which I believe work for all students and all learners with the best of technology which I believe can go back into high school, can get people caught up, can get them new advance. And again, doesn't matter what type of student you are. So that is a thing. And meanwhile there is a movement and that has been really successful at bringing up all those different kinds of best practices that do help students who have been undereducated in high school and do have to make up a lot of learning to be ready for on the ground college educational experiences. And I don't want to undermine that in any kind of way because that's been a really important movement. There's a whole group called Strong Start to Finish which has organized funders including the foundation, all the thought leaders in the area. And in my humble opinion though hasn't leveraged the best of product and technology yet. So that we're trying to kind of rethink how we think and talk about learning and teaching. I will also say that you know, sometimes we get a little bit lulled into with the education space of thinking that there's one solution, one silver bullet and there's one kind of term of art that is the thing that's gonna succeed and it's just not that simple as you know. And so I think trying to challenge all of us to think creatively and to be informed by other disciplines. You know, being a technologist and having launched a product and a company from in high technology, I am very used to taking a blank sheet of paper and thinking about the end user and designing an experience for them. And what I've realized at the foundation and working with a lot of the traditional players is that they have more of a social science approach. So it's very top down. How do we help the administrators and the faculty and the da da da da da and eventually maybe if you're lucky you talk about the student and that's to me the wrong, yeah, I like the other process better. I like to start with the end user, the student and then try to optimize their experience. So there's a little bit of like how do we mesh those different approaches and so I'm hoping that we can have some positive influence from different kinds of industries and processes to influence how we rethink and how we have more human centered approaches to the work. My name's Andrew Sears, I'm with City Vision University and I was listening to Michael Saylor's talk that he gave at the last summit and one of the statements he made, I don't know whether it's true or not, but he said that if Microsoft or Google or Amazon wanted to invest a billion dollars they could provide a platform that could provide degrees to most people in the world. Now, obviously there's these other things needed. There's the human side and it's not the computer's gonna do it all, right? But there's this platform need. I look at what's happened with Khan Academy and they're becoming the default platform for high schools, right? 50 to 100 million dollars. I mean, not high school students to train them tutoring for high school students, right? But Saylor hasn't reached that scale. I mean, whenever I try to describe or Saylor Academy to people I say it's kind of like the college counterpart to Khan Academy. And I'm wondering why isn't there yet a college counterpart to Khan Academy that's gotten to that scale? Why isn't there these large scale platforms? And how do you think about that in your investments? I mean, it seems like most of your investments are on the gradual improvement scale, but some of these disruptive investments. How do you think about that? Yeah, I should have brought some other slides where I could show you kind of how I think about it and how I'm socializing it within the foundation. But there are some really captivating points that you made. I think that most of the big high technology companies have been so focused on solving easier to solve problems than the intractable educational problems that we're facing right now. And I think they're just starting to think about what at the scale that an Amazon or a Google plays in can they actually contribute to having big shifts in our learning experiences and the success of our students? So I think that in a very real way, there is a lot of evolution happening. When I see programs like the Galvanize labs, which are in some major cities, they're beyond boot camps. They literally have co-located their IBM Watson, Google, Microsoft, and they're literally doing coding camps, trying Watson, teaching you how to code and correspond with these different systems. And one of the big things that I'm trying to bring about in addition to bringing and inspiring new technologies and high technology to apply themselves to educational problems is I'm also thinking about how do we get the tools and put in the hands of people who have not been successful? How do we put the tools for them to build their own solutions? How do we get those tools into their hands? How do we help them? Because in most technologies, you build a tool for yourself to solve your own problem because you best understand those end users. And so we have a real problem where we have people creating tools in a very historical, institutional way that knows nothing about this group that has not been successful here. And so that's a huge chasm and how do we correct for that? So that's one of the things I think about. So I'll put that to the side and then I'll say, in addition to the meat and potatoes of the solutions I just described to you, we have, and I have staffed up to do a lot more on the innovation front. So we do deep, deep research into virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, into AI and machine learning, into predictive analytics, into various technologies and we understand the arc of the development maturity of the technologies and then we're sponsoring competitions with players like tech stars, university ventures, Kaggle, which is with Google and many other players to help K-POR, to help have competitions where we can see new entrepreneurs deliver new solutions, new business models, new technologies, hopefully with using, applying new technologies to these seemingly insoluble problems. And I think we've got to, so I've got an innovations bucket where we do smaller grants and just to give you one understanding of this lifecycle, the foundation before I came had done a couple years of grant making in what seemed like a very scary little innovation area called OER and five years ago, nobody was confident that this stuff would actually get itself together. Well, it really is and it is truly disruptive to the traditional publisher market and the oligarchy, frankly, that they've had on all textbooks and courses. And so that is really a disruptive thing that we were able to take a chance on and those solutions are actually scaling up right now. In fact, I was just talking to someone about not only the idea of open educational curricula but also open educational assessments so you really can have from beginning to end an affordable open course experience because you have to have the assessment piece at the end. So there's the innovation on the one end and the other thing that in addition to the grants that we do in my portfolio for the large-scale solutions, once they've kind of shown themselves and we have the evidence base from the innovations area, we're also doing and I'm ramping up more of our investment side. So we do have a separate kind of large pot of money to be able to invest in companies to try to stimulate more innovation from the kind of private sector commercial side to actually be able to do this and we can do price guarantees that make the technology affordable to community colleges and four-year institutions. We can be a voice for our students on behalf and at the board table with these companies and we can help guide them to make sure things stay affordable for our institutions and our students. So innovation, small-scale innovation, the meat and potato longer-term grants that we do five, six year kind of grants with a lot of these big solutions and then also leveraging investments and helping take our domain knowledge to bring together Google and other big players to help us really scale and really bring something fully to market. So we have a lot more kind of at our disposal that maybe we've availed or really leveraged in the past. Okay, I think that's the time we have. Oh, okay. So, but please take the opportunity to continue the discussion. Can we get one more, the one guy on the page? I'm sorry. Better be a good one though. No pressure. I'm kind of intrigued this 11% of employers are not so really powerful and scary number. I think what's the balance in higher ed between getting students who finish school and preparing students or learners for the future? And I look at your boss and many other people who never got the degree. And the question is, how do we play a role that's not really focused on graduation all the time? Even though that is a good option. But there are many people who thrive, never getting the degree, but everyone needs to learn. And so what are your thoughts from the foundation standpoint in preparing people for that? Because I have students, because in entrepreneurship, when you teach entrepreneurship, if you're successful, they leave college, period. And then the school says, well, we just lost an alum and my name's like absolutely not. I mean, look, Zuckerberg just went back to Harvard. Right. After being away for so long. And it is the new companies that create all the productivity. We as a country are at an all-time low in terms of actual productivity. And the only thing that's, it's not Facebook and these huge companies that create new jobs and increase productivity. It is startups to mid-sized companies that are actually the engine for productivity. So that's another kind of point to your case. So that 11% is that's from big companies, but the bottom line is, are they prepared for actually launching things, sustaining things, failing and have the resiliency to go back and continue their world? To go back. That's exactly that. And what do we play as higher ed? I'm Steve Brant from Batebeth University. Okay. And so what do we do to not be upset when a student leaves, but actually continue with them in our family? I don't know if the foundation has thought about that. Yeah, I mean, we do. And like I said, you know, it's kind of, there are different sort of orders of our priorities. I mean, what I wanna do is I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I will not go where Peter Thiel goes and says, and say education doesn't matter because for too many of us, myself included, the ascendancy into middle class experience has been because of my education, UC Berkeley and Yale for business school. And I really don't feel like I'm entitled or other people should be entitled to say, oh, that doesn't matter to folks. So, you know, it's not that black or white. But what we do know is that if you're preparing students and there's a great book called Stretch, written by a woman who used to be the chief learning officer at Sun Microsystems, now is at SAP. And it's all about how do people need to manage their own careers in a gig-based economy. The world has changed significantly, as you know. And I think if you can impart upon your students, and I say this with one stepdaughter who just completed college, who is going to her first real job, and one son who is pre-med and about started senior year in college. So I think about this topic a lot. If you can impart with them the skills of how to manage themselves to be lifelong learners and who think holistically about the different pieces of what they need to learn just in time to do this challenge. And whether they stay in one company or whether they go to lots of different companies, you will have to learn new skills to do new things again and again and again. So if you can learn in college how to learn what you need to do when you're ready to achieve your next goal, that's really I think the ticket. And so if you can build communities where students and alumni and dropouts can all come back and get resources. And if you can engage employers to have real communication, real-time feedback about the nature and changing nature of jobs. When I was in business school, data scientists was not a thing at all. It is the biggest thing in Silicon Valley now. So it's just gonna keep changing. And I think in an accelerated way. So I hope that's helpful. Yeah. No, no, and we need to count different kinds of wins. And I think we need to look for how do we support the entrepreneurs? Jim Clifton at Gallup is an amazing spotter of budding entrepreneurs and backs a lot of them. But we need to continue to think how can the campus be a place for supporting entrepreneurs, for supporting all the different roles that we need people to take on in society. So I hope that's helpful. Thank you very much.