 The University of Wisconsin system has a high profile direct assessment competency-based program. I think it's pretty small though, I think 1200, 1500 students right now, but they have an online little ad for it and I think it's called FlexPath. It does a great job of explaining this in 30 seconds. I realize I just worked checking out actually. So let's briefly, before we open up to questions, talk about the regulatory side. Believe it or not, we're in Washington. This is an issue that is actually bipartisan. There's a bipartisan bill to create a demonstration project around competency-based debt. It seems that the past administration really liked competency-based debt. It seems like this one is not going to at least stop it on the interest and maybe encourage it once they kind of staff up. But what would you like to see Washington do, and creditors do, to both preserve quality, protect it, but to also encourage the growth in this field? I know this is not a simple question, but I'll start with this one. I think the question has always been, what do we, as taxpayers, want to pay for? And up until now it's been instruction. And I think with competency-based education, it starts a conversation around, should we be paying for instruction, or should we be paying for outcomes? Should we be paying for what a student knows and can do? So when you change the paradigm to focus on that, things like regular and substantive interaction don't seem as important because the reason why that exists is to make sure that students are getting instruction. Can you briefly explain that? Briefly? Yeah, it's not easy. So regular and substantive interaction is a statute that differentiates distance learning from correspondence education and has to do with whether or not the faculty member is regularly interacting with the student. It has to be faculty instigated. And just briefly on that, so that the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Education has been auditing Western Governors University, which is obviously the big fish here, on the regular and substantive issue. And if they find that they're not operating under the statutes, they might label it as a correspondence course provider, which would be very bad for WGU, and would require them actually to pay back some of the federal aid they've received over the years. So this is a very hot, delicate issue right now. And a lot of folks are wondering where the kind of regulatory side will go on competency-based education. You know, it's hard because I'm torn, honestly. I'm really interested in new models. I think there are serious issues with the current ones. And I'm aware that there's this rush to the bottom whenever there's a loophole. And so I do believe that the amount of money at stake is so huge that you do have to deal with fraud and abuse. You have to try to prevent it. At the same time, whenever I hear somebody say, well, I don't know, direct assessment, that sounds pretty fishy. And I think, oh, an indirect assessment is okay with you? Like, you know, that we never question the status quo. And I think with the level of scrutiny that it deserves to be.