Will the Pandemic Accelerate Change in Higher Ed?

As we enter the beginning of yet another year with COVID hanging over us, its impact hasn't just been on brick and mortar in person learning. It's likely to leave a significant and durable mark on online institutions as well, those that are serving largely adult students.

That's right, Michael. And to help us really understand the impacts of COVID and what it will mean for institutions that were innovating in novel ways prior to the pandemic, today on Future you, we're welcoming Greg Fowler, the president of the University of Maryland Global Campus.

This episode of Future youe was made possible by the support from Nelnet Campus Commerce. To read their latest study on improving retention, visit Campus Commerce. Com Retainer and by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which is proud to support the work of the Post Secondary Value Commission. Because the question what is college worth? Deserves answers. Learn more at postsecondaryvalue.org subscribe to Future youe wherever you get your podcasts and follow us on Twitter at the Handle FutureYou podcast. And if you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a five star rating. Subscribe so others can discover the conversations we're having about higher education.

I'm Jeff Salingo.

And I'm Michael Horn. Jeff, it's good to see you. This episode, of course, is the second of our in person episodes this year as we record this interview from the ASU GSV Summit in San Diego, which makes it a real treat to be in person with you. And for those listening though, just want to reassure you that we have been taking full safety precautions. We have distancing in full effect and masks on when we're indoors and not recording. So not everything perhaps is the same.

Jeff yeah, and I think it's fair to say, Michael, that we learned a lot recording online and remotely, and realized that some of what we were doing during the pandemic are practices that we're likely to maintain. Indeed, working remotely and online has taught us all a great deal. And it's clear that in higher ed, those who were online prior to the pandemic had a significant leg up in some respects in making the transition, but they also face a host of other challenges as well, and they're unlikely to go back to normal. On the heels of the pandemic, there's a lot of changes brewing in higher ed.

That's right, Jeff. And to talk to us today about those changes is Greg Fowler the president of the University of Maryland Global Campus, or umgc. Before umgc, Greg was president of Southern New Hampshire University's Global Campus, or its online school. So he has a lot of experience in online learning and innovation more broadly. UMGC itself was founded in the 1940s, and today it's among the largest public institutions in the country, with roughly 129,050 course enrollments prior to the pandemic, which grew to over 134,000 enrollments this most recent year. It is historically focused on military students as its niche, if you will. I'm not sure that something that large can be called a niche in higher ed, but nonetheless, that's how we often think about it, and UMGC has certainly been among the more innovative institutions. So first. Greg, thanks for joining us.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

So a question that we typically start out with asking our guests is about their own career story. And in your case, how did you get started in higher education and then find your way to the presidency at

umgc, when I try to tell my story, I often start with something that isn't directly taught to higher education, which is my years in college. I was working at Six Flags Over Georgia, and and I and I use that because a lot of the lessons I learned about teams and working with teams came from my years there. A lot of the things we talked about were around, it doesn't matter what team you're on, everybody is responsible for the park. So there was a little hierarchy there of rides and then shows and then restaurants and all these types of things. But they were like, you could be on the rides team, but if you have trash that you see lying on the ground, please go pick it up, because it's your park, too. So I take that lesson a lot to think about how the team operates as a whole. But even in some of the work I do now and after college, my first job was with the National Endowment for the humanities in Washington, D.C. as an outreach specialist. And the work of the outreach specialist was to help the various populations, who were often underserved by grants and other things, take advantage of the funds that were available to them. So I spent a lot of time working with various groups, everybody from the Hispanic association of Colleges and Universities to NAFIO and others, figure out how to help with schools, how to help with various populations around the country, museums, and all of these other things, which has sort of triggered the work that I think about when it comes to how do we help those whose voices have not been heard. And that really has driven most of my career. Since then, I've worked in media relations for a couple of years with the National Endowment for the Humanities after that, and then moved to Penn State Erie de Baron College for a number of years. And while I was there, I finished my PhD work, but I also did my first Fulbright to Europe, and that was in 2002 or so, right after they'd done the Bologna Accords, which were a lot of work around how do we get these various countries tied together in standards that we can actually operate with no matter where we are? Which got me thinking a lot about what are the standards of higher education? What type of uniformity is there? What kind of value systems or outcomes can you put in place? So it was interesting when I came back to the United States a couple of years later, I got a call from Western Governors University, which was at that time relatively small, about 3,000 students and 500 graduates. And Bob Mendenhall, the president at that time, said, how many times in your life do you think you're gonna ever get the chance to build a college? And looking back, I think that's sort of funny now, given my career. But then it was really about competency based, putting standards in place. So I stayed there for a number of years in the Dean of Liberal Arts position at first, so spent a lot of time thinking about what does competency look like for the liberal arts. Then I moved into Associate provost role that dealt with first student learning and the faculty, and then into program development. Eventually got an opportunity several years later to work with Hesser College in Manchester, New Hampshire, which was owned by the Kaplan Corporation at the time. So I spent a year working with the for profit industry and then SNHU, which was at the time, I think somewhere around 11,000, 12,000 students had been working in the online space, but was looking for someone to come on and be the Vice President of Academic affairs to build out the academic portion of the online side as it continued to grow because it had gotten too big to be managed by the ground campus. So I spent a number of years, first as the VPAA and then of course, the various modalities that we put in place took off. And so I eventually became Global Campus president, working on the CBE work, working on a number of the other modalities that we put in place with LRNG and others. And then of course, finally ended up just in January of this year, working as the President of University of Maryland Global Campus.

So you've been president of UMGC for less than a year now, A couple months at this point. What have you learned so far about the institution? And specifically, I think a lot of folks have seen the online first Players such as UMGC or even wgu. Right. As having a big leg up as the world kind of shifted to remote learning in the fall and last spring. And many schools that have been doing online for a while have leaned into that messaging as well.

Right.

I think I was telling you yesterday when we saw each other, you know, in dc, I saw a Metro bus go by with a big ad for Old Dominion University saying we've been online for something like 25 years or something like that. Right. So you're even messaging that now. But I'm curious to dig in on that a little bit. How has that narrative been accurate and what about it is inaccurate? Where your students, faculty, staff and programs have perhaps had some unique challenges that we might not know about. So we think that online first is good, or online early is good, but maybe not so much.

So. I absolutely think that it's very hard to unlearn things once you learn them. If you may have had a chance to read Clark Gilbert's book on dual transformation, once you begin to build a system, it's very hard to get people, particularly if it's successful, to think differently about things and the online world. We talk about innovation. It's really hard to innovate when you're trying to scale the sort of big core thing without disrupting that, unless you have some mechanisms to do things differently. In fact, that's one of the reasons why, if you take a look at snhu, the whole premise behind coce, the College of Online and Continuing Education, being put two miles down the river and given its own governance structure was because it was meant to not disrupt what was happening on the ground campus. That's been very true for even a number of the things that we've tried to do in various places. So if you have an online model that's doing full time and courses in a place, how do you start thinking about things like micro credentials? How do you begin to think about other things? And how do you not distract the core business by doing those types of things? How do you think about changing the culture if you change the culture, if you introduce these types of things? So a lot of the work you see in a number of these institutions, WGU Lab, Sandbox Collaborative, our attempts to try to say, we want to make sure we don't totally divorce this process, but we also need to give it space to breathe and try things without disrupting that. So I think it's definitely an opportunity to say, yes, there was a leg up, but there's also a challenge when you're trying to do new things that in some ways, because your success has been so great, makes it harder to do.

So are there big changes during COVID that are likely to stick at the University of Maryland Global campus, or are there things that you stopped doing that maybe will continue to stay on the sidelines?

So one of the things we have stopped doing is obviously making all of our team come into the office. And so. And that has its implications as well. So this is particularly true when you're talking about success coaches, your advising team, some of the admissions team as they're working out of their homes. It requires us to think very differently about everything from what's the equipment they need, how does that impact the culture? How does that culture impact those student experience as they continue to move forward? So we've had to think differently about what that might look like in the future, particularly as we begin to expand our role in the civilian population across the country. So as we begin to do those types of things, trying to think a little bit about what does that look like, how do we think more broadly because we have such a large military population around the globe, how do we do things differently when it comes to that type of thing? And of course, you, you've got the issues that all of us are working with right now, which are the things like I've got a whole lot of retail space in Largo, Maryland. If all of those people are home, what do I do with the space? How do I change those types of things to continue to move forward? So these are items we're thinking about that are more business oriented. I wouldn't say that we've changed our strategy, but we certainly had to think a little bit differently about the tactics and what that looks like going forward.

It's interesting you brought up Clark Gilbert's work on dual transformation, which is for those that are listening. Terrific book. I highly recommend it as well. But you referenced the work that you did. You know, it's at the New Hampshire University with and Sandbox Collaborative and Western Governor's University with their WGU labs about creating spaces to incubate things that are different so that you can constantly push the envelope and allow the institution to evolve over time. I'm curious some of the work, like how is that translated a little bit more specifically to what you're setting up at umgc and what are those new things that you all are chasing? You referenced micro credentials maybe and things of that nature. What are those new populations and ways you're going to tackle that?

Many people don't necessarily realize that a large portion of UMGC student body is the military here in the US and certainly around the globe. They're give or take about 177 locations that we're operating out of. And so we've got Europe, Asia, North Africa, the Middle east and a number of places where we've had to think differently about everything from diversity initiatives to the technology to the policies in those types of places. So we're trying to use those things to think a little bit differently about other things as well. That goes into play when it comes particularly with the military around things like PLA digital credentials. Some of these things are particularly for our population, going to be interesting. When we think about broadening that population, it turns into something very different. So if you're going to deal with non military students, you're talking about a different type of financial aid, you're talking about different circumstances in which they're trying to operate. So these are things we are trying to rethink as we move forward. What adjustments might we want to make to make those things happen and at the same time get better at serving things like PLA and other things to military who have experiences that may not necessarily translate directly into credit in the current system.

So I want to take a step back a little bit from the University of Maryland Global campus. You know, you've been a keen observer, obviously you went through your career, they're in higher education more generally and you've worked at some really innovative places. So what are your thoughts about the ultimate impact of this pandemic? You know, there's been a lot of chatter out there that, no pun intended, that this was like the booster shot that higher education needed to change and that change happened. That would have happened maybe 10 years from now in the last 18 months. What will change in higher ed ultimately, do you think, and. And what's likely to kind of go back to normal or stay the same from the old days?

I continue to believe that there are a number of institutions that are looking at this and being reflective about the work of what comes next. But I also believe that a lot of institutions aren't necessarily ready for that type of change as well. So I think about this in sort of three categories. I think students will have more tools, more resources. We are certainly seeing that they do like certain elements of what happened during the online period that they were on, no matter where they were. So things like short videos that they can go back and look at again, chats in real time that allow them to do different things Being able to do asynchronous things that allows their schedule to be different. Faculty are discovering that if we do things this way, we can see through the data places where students are struggling and possibly reach out to them in different ways than we might have before. So both with students and faculty, I certainly think things will continue to move forward. I pose as a challenge to a lot of the institutions. Are they really going to take the step back and do the reflective work it will take to become that next generation of an institution? And I don't know that all of them do want to do that, nor do I really think they should. This is one of those things where I appreciate the diversity of mission in higher education. And there are institutions that we continue to need to do those various types of things. So I'm not saying everything needs to move in a homogenous direction. I'm not totally sure that institutions as a whole are going to move very rapidly. I think what we see across all types of institutions, political, religious, educational, is that they tend to move two steps forward, one step back as they do these types of things. I don't think that Covid changed that trajectory. I think that it may have accelerated certain things, but I don't think that we're going in a different direction than we would have. So your statement earlier about this might have happened in several years, I think is very true.

So I want to just double click on that because I sense both acceptance of that reality from you, but also some frustration underneath there that maybe certain principles aren't questions. And I'm just curious if you got to paint this world and how people would adjust out of the pandemic? What are the things that you think people ought to be leaning in on across the spectrum, and what are the things that they ought to be discarding and stuff like that from traditional practice?

You hear these conversations right now of people during the pandemic who have reflected on their lives, who say, all of a sudden, I don't want to do the job I was doing before. I didn't realize how much time I was using. I commuting all of these various types of things. I wish institutions would do a much more intentional job of that as well, really thinking about what is their mission and are they doing that? I asked this question at SNHU about maybe my second year in, and I asked it when I started at umgc, which was, do we even agree on things like what it means to learn, and do we agree on how learning happens? And are we doing those things? And if we're not, then why are we continuing to do them? So getting institutions to take these sort of fundamental steps back and say, we, who are we? Who do we really want to be? And are we doing things because it's the way we've always done them, or are we doing them because they're the right things to do for the students as we move forward? You hear this student centered phrase all the time. And I don't believe that many institutions really take a step back and go, what does it mean to really be centered on this student? So that's what I wish. If I could paint with a brush, that would be what I'd do.

Greg, thank you so much for being with us on Future youe. And we're going to be right back after this break.

Thank you.

Did you know that 25% of students carry an unpaid balance from one term to the next? That means roughly one quarter of your students can be in danger of going to collections, but there's a way to support them. Nelnet Campus Commerce recently shared a study that outlines the best ways higher ed institutions can get past due students back on track. To learn more, our listeners can download a free copy of the White paper paper@campuscommerce.com retain that's campuscommerce.com retain

welcome back to Future youe after a conversation with Greg Fowler, who is the relatively new president at umgc. And Jeff, I want to start with asking about what I perceive as the headline from the conversation, which actually isn't about UMGC per se, but more Greg's observations about how much colleges and universities will really change or accelerate change out of the pandemic and his belief that maybe the pandemic has accelerated some of those changes, but probably not change the trajectory. And I want to throw it to you about what's your view? Are colleges and universities having the deep reflective conversations they should have around mission and focus and programs and delivery of education and such, in your opinion, or what's really going on right now?

Yeah, I mean, I think they are at the administrative level and the trustee level. I will tell you that I've spoken to a lot of senior leadership teams and trustees over the last six to eight months about this very subject. But what I don't think is happening, I don't think they're in sync with faculty and staff who really, at the end of the day, have to deliver on this mission. It's really interesting, Michael. In the pandemic globally, we've been talking a lot about labor, right? What People want to do with their lives, how employers value labor, the deep inequities, for example, on who can work from home and who can't. And what's interesting about higher ed is that we didn't seem to have these discussions, at least in the mainstream media. Right. We talked on a episode last season, on a reporter's roundtable at the near the end of the season about why higher education was so much in the news. And it's because, you know, everybody was experiencing school in some way. They had kids in K12 schools or in colleges. And, you know, much like hospitals and airlines have been in the news a lot, too, because they're kind of at the front line of what's happening now in the pandemic. But what's interesting is if you read stories about hospitals and airlines, you're reading a lot about the labor in those places. But the stories about higher ed are largely about the students. Right. We're reading about the stress of nurses and doctors and flight attendants, and I'm not trying to diminish those at all. But we're not reading as much beyond the Chronicle of Higher Education or Inside Higher Ed, the trade press, about the stresses on academic labor, both faculty and staff. It's interesting, somebody recently told me that on their campus in the UC system, they have this annual meeting about retirement planning that would normally have attracted, maybe before the pandemic, two dozen employees, and one last week brought out nearly 200 people who are planning for retirement on this campus. And so going back to academic labor in particular, you know, historically, faculty, we think of them in these three buckets, right? In terms of their service, research and teaching, and not in that order, by the way. It's usually research, teaching, service, and maybe teaching service way down that list. But I think that if we want to get academic labor on board, that we need to get them in sync around mission and particularly rethinking the university around the flexibility of delivery and digital education and online education. Right. We need to really create room by asking them to do less somewhere else and incentivizing that, or else I think we're just going to continue to see pushback from faculty who just say we can't do any more.

It's fascinating, Jeff. It also makes me think about the differences between K12 education and higher education, where I think we've seen relatively more coverage in the K12 sphere about teacher burnout and such. Probably not fully capturing the story like we have with airlines and hospitals still, but more so than higher ed. Just another distinction I think in how the media covers higher ed. But one more follow up I'm curious about, which is that Greg also implied that maybe many universities shouldn't do a dramatic rethinking of their mission or who they serve. And I'm curious if you share that view. I thought his view could, you know, have implications, for example, at the selective end of higher ed in terms of it's okay to serve limited numbers, for example. And so I'm very curious. Your take?

Yeah, I'm going to probably push back a little bit on that, Michael. In terms of, yes, we have a diversity of institutions, but we also have a replication of institutions in most cases, right? This ifomorphism that Michael Crow and others talk about all the time that really describes colleges that copy each other in their structure and policies. And, and so yes, we have a lot of diversity of types of institutions and size and maybe their research agenda, but at the core of what they do, a lot of institutions are pretty similar. This is one of the reasons I'm working on a project now at ASU that maybe one day on a show we'll talk a little bit more about. But we're trying to rethink the Carnegie classifications. And you know, the Carnegie classifications are things that I think that most people don't think about. Right. This was created by Clark kerr in the 1970s to organize higher education. And this is where the concept of R1 Research1 universities have come in. And what I've seen in my coverage of higher ed over the years is that everybody's always trying to move up to what they perceive as a higher category in the Carnegie classifications. And my feeling is that this impedes innovations because colleges must look the same in order to get into certain groups. And so it just results in this never ending drive for status. And that in turn, I think shapes our reality. Encouraging the public to see some colleges as better and not fully acknowledging the wide ranging roles that Greg was talking about that different institutions are trying to fulfill. And I really think that we need more differentiation. So one of the things that we've been working with is a group of educational researchers to develop a different classification system system, one that identifies the diverse organizational designs that colleges and universities can pursue to achieve a public purpose. So rather than a hierarchy where categories right now exist largely based on arbitrary levels of research activity or the types of degrees awarded, we're constructing this system with 17 different measures that capture ways colleges and universities provide access to students, how they deliver education, including online education, how they produce new knowledge. And so we now have developed this array of 13 clusters. These are groups of institutions with similar characteristics. There's no ranking or hierarchy to our clusters. And really what we're trying to do is we're trying to say that there's a difference, for example, between the University of Chicago and Walmart Academy, or Wright State and Amherst or Penn State. And so, you know, we have a group, for example, called National Scale Research Universities, and that captures institutions that have scale in both teaching and research places like Ohio State and Georgia Tech and Purdue and Arizona State. We have another group that focuses on high intensity research universities and that includes Harford, Stanford and mit. And the goal here again is not to put these in a hierarchy, which I think that Carnegie classifications do, but to say what Greg says right is like we have a variety of institutional missions and let's lean into those and recognize institutions for those. So again, there's a lot more to talk about this, but I think the time has really come for higher education to have a sharper tool to really understand and assess the sector beyond what we've historically had with the Carnegie classification. So let me flip it back to you, Michael. What did you take away from his points about kind of revisiting mission?

First, let me just say on your points, I love the taxonomy work. Michael Crowe talked about that at the ASU GSV Summit. I think it was two years ago now. And I thought it was incredibly important work because I agree, you know, the upmarket allure, if you will, of becoming an R1 institution ultimately is alive and well in higher ed. It's one of the reasons the disruption dynamics that we describe in other sectors we think has applicability in higher ed because that pull to serve, you know, more demanding, make more money, be more prestigious and so forth. And I also think if you're successful in building this other categorization scheme, we could do a much better job of understanding value based on these new categorizations. And I know that's a topic Jeff, we intend to tackle this season around value in higher ed. But really comparing like institutions and what are the excellent institutions and in a different category, I think could reset some of this upmarket allure, if you will. And look, I think Greg would agree that multiple missions is key, but your point about intentionally battling isomorphism I think is a really important one in creating a new categorization scheme to aid in that I think is vital. But the one thing I guess I would say is I was also struck by the question that Greg asked when he was at Southern New Hampshire University or now that he's arrived at umgc, which is, as he phrased it, do we agree on what learning is? Do we agree what student centered actually means? And what I took from that is that when people at an institution read their missions or their programmatic missions, and we all know a lot of those statements are fairly benign and not super specific and all kind of blend into each other in many cases. But within that there are probably widely divergent views over what the words in those statements even, even mean. And that has big implications on what you choose to do or choose not to do. And to be clear, this isn't unusual. Like we do a lot of research, as you know, on jobs to be done. Why do people hire different products or services in their lives? And when you're doing these narratives of why people make these choices, they'll use different words. And if you don't beat up the word, you think that they're all talking about the same thing. When you know, instead you say something is affordable, you have a certain reference point in your head of what that means that's very different from when I say it. Or right now we're doing research and why do people change careers for a new book we're working on? And a lot of the people we talk to, they say, well, I wanted to have more impact. And so we had to ask like five times, what do you mean by impact? Because some people, you know, it's around depth of impact, Some people it's around breadth. Some people it's social impact, others it's impact on the business. ROI being a key individual contributor, maker versus manager, like that individual word has a lot of definitions. And so really drilling down into the specifics as Greg is pushing his teams to do, to be clear about why are we doing what we're doing, why do we serve this group? Is this actually in service of our mission? I think that to get more precise and more agreement on a campus can actually allow campuses to say our missions are different and we shouldn't be structured the same right as the R1 institution down the street. We should actually radically change how we're structured because to fulfill it would mean looking very different, for example. So I was quite taken with that answer, Jeff.

Yeah. So last question, Michael. I mean, Greg's obviously a student on change management at large and fast growing institutions, which is really tricky. So what's your take on his answer about how online first or online early institutions were prepared to handle the pandemic?

So I'll be honest, Jeff, I had to Listen, we're recording this a little bit later, right? I had to listen to the answer a couple times because there was a lot of nuance in it. And what I took ultimately was that right now the surveys and research are showing that the majority of learners have more support for short term credentials over degrees. That's certainly not everyone, right? It's surveys, so there's percentages in both. But there's a wave of support right now for short term credentials. And what I took is that these large online programs, these online first or online early institutions, they were built for offering degrees, not short term credentials. And just to take one example, if you're recruiting for a short term program and an online degree program, that actually may cost the same amount to fill the seat, right? Like the cost of student acquisition may be the same, but in the latter case, you know, for the degree you're going to get a much higher revenue figure obviously than for the short term credential as higher ed is currently constructed. And you might actually lose money on the short term program. And so your program would naturally sort of sway toward filling more degree seats than the short term credentials. And what I took from that is if we're serious about innovating in short term credentials and the like, you probably need to take an organization out of your current business model and cost structure and figure out how do we get students, how do we serve them, how do we make it more affordable and allow that new organization to prioritize it. And this is where I think the dual transformation aspect of his answer comes in, which is that Clark Gilbert, who was of course the president of BYU Idaho and then BYU Pathway Worldwide, and a Clay Christensen doctoral student, actually, you know, he's written this book, Dual Transformation, where he explicates Clay Christensen's observation that to truly disrupt yourself, you need an autonomous team, which is more than a skunk works. It's a place where you can set up an organization that reinvents the resources, processes, the revenue and profit formula of an organization and the value proposition to deliver something new. And I think Greg's use of the word disrupting was to say that can operate simultaneously but not screw up, if you will, the operations of the core where you've been successful and that gives you the permission and the money and the people to be able to try to execute on this new mission. And that's sort of the art of being able to do both. That long term may disrupt, right? What you do, but in the short term isn't going to screw up your existing offerings for your existing students and stakeholders. So that's what I took away from it. So I want to segue Jeff, as we wrap up and move to questions, if you will, from the audience. This one I'm going to pull not from a direct audience question. To future you and for those listening, please keep sending us questions that you want Jeff and me to answer and we'll, we'll dig in. But something that there's a lot of swirl around and you were involved in on the Twitter sphere and there were questions to you around it, which was Netflix debuted this within higher ed circles. Very anticipated series called the Chair around being a faculty member and department chair at a college. You actually watched it? I confess I'm one of the people that canceled my Netflix subscription, so I have not yet viewed it. At some point maybe I'll be allowed to come over to your house and watch it. But you actually completed the first episode, I guess, or maybe even the series

first season, I guess. I'm assuming they're doing another season. But yeah, okay. It's really quick. Six episodes. They're only about a half hour each or so. A great series. Just, it was really funny. If you really are kind of deep into academia, I mean, there's some accuracies, you know, as many people pointed out, you know, this is a small, somewhat elite liberal arts college. It doesn't really show the reality of today's higher education system.

But I want to just interrupt you and say the question that I think is really interesting is like when you look at this, a lot of people are commenting about how it does or doesn't resemble higher ed. But I'm more curious like what does it say about how the public thinks of higher ed and sort of the image, if you will, more broadly of higher education out there.

I think what it shows to the public is that, you know, higher ed is self involved. You know, it's kind of really thinking about itself too much. Right. That the professors are more interested in publishing once they get tenure, they're not really teaching. And you know, and there's these departments that don't want to be relevant to their students. So if you haven't seen the show, the show really focuses on the English department at this fictional Pembroke University. And basically what they're worried about throughout the whole show is losing relevance. And the dean wants to get rid of some older faculty there who he feels are not teaching to what the students want these days. There's is reference to the creator economy and how students want to create and the professors are kind of teaching the old way. And to me, that is around the public vision of higher education is that our courses, our programs are not relevant to what students need or want in this job economy, and that you have professors unwilling to change. And that, to me, is kind of the narrative that goes throughout this, the six episodes that really is problematic for most of higher education because I think, particularly in the last 18 months, parents who saw their students learning at home over zoom, that's what they saw. They saw professors really struggling to use this online technology pedagogy that is kind of very old. There's this laugh line in the show that somebody said to the one professor, when was the last time you looked at your evaluations? And she said, 1977. So. Right. So it's like that. That, to me, feeds on this idea that institutions and faculty in particular are not investing enough time, effort and money in their primary product, which is teaching and learning.

That's a daunting but strong place, I think, to leave this episode. And so we'll wrap it up there. And thanks, as always, for listening to us on Future youe Stay Safe Sa.