October 31, 2023 • 37 mins
In this episode, I talk with Scott Pulsipher, president of Western Governors University (WGU). We talk about the history of WGU, the growth of enrollments and the evolution of the teaching and learning model. I discuss with Scott how the WGU team thinks about serving working learners and the importance of their Competency-Based Education model. Scott also describes recent efforts in Congress to codify CBE and the impact of AI on its model.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Detached audio (00:10):
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz Oakley and welcome back to
the ramp, the podcast where wepull back the curtain and break
down the people, the policies,and the politics of our higher
education system.
In this episode, I get to talkto Scott Pulsifer, president and
c e o of Western GovernorsUniversity, W G U.
(00:30):
W G U is one of the trailblazinguniversities built to serve
working learners through acompetency-based education
model.
Since its founding in 1997, W GU has grown to serve more than
150,000 learners throughout thecountry.
We will discuss W's roots, itsevolution, and how it's
(00:53):
harnessing technology to betterserve learners of all
backgrounds.
So Scott, welcome to the rent.
Scott (01:00):
Eli, it's great to be with you.
Thanks for having me
Eloy (01:03):
great to have you and thanks for all the work that
you're leading.
And you've been leading W G Usince around 2016, if I have
that right.
Throughout that time, you'veseen rapid growth of your
university, you've seen a lot ofchanges take hold.
You've lived through a pandemic.
However, before we get into theW G U story, let's get to know
(01:27):
your story.
Scott, tell us about your highereducation journey and what led
you to this leadership positionat W G U.
Scott (01:36):
As much as I don't like starting with myself, I suppose
it's a little bit different thanmany who found themselves in a
position like this.
it was a combination of, Isuppose, a lot of preparation
through other experiences thatmay have not been within higher
education a growing affinity forit, and how education can
certainly change the lives ofothers for the better.
(01:59):
But then a little bit ofserendipity and, and maybe
chance or coincidence at least.
And, and that is to say thatmost of my prior experience
prior to WG was within theprivate sector, particularly
within technology and softwarestartups and Amazon.
and prior to that, I was inmanagement consulting way back
early in my career.
But beginning around 2010, Ipersonally started associated
(02:21):
with my undergraduate almaMater, Brigham Young University
that's also based here in Utahwhere I'm now based.
And I start having theopportunity to participate on an
advisory board, started guestlecturing and part participating
in seminar series.
And so I started gettingconnected again with all of
those you know, those nostalgicexperiences that I had in terms
(02:42):
of how education helped shape myfuture and the prospects I had
in my life.
And that was quite fun.
But what was interesting aroundthat time too, is I was working
up in Seattle, Washington andAmazon.
The executive recruiter that Istarted to get to know because
he'd been trying to recruit meto other technology firms.
It happened to be the case thatafter I had already chosen to
(03:05):
leave Amazon and join anothersoftware startup that happened
to be headquartered here in SaltLake City, Utah, and my, I and
my family had already made themove that it turned out that w g
had actually hired thisexecutive recruiter and the
partner who on point.
And had had known that I'd takenan opportunity that brought me
(03:26):
to Utah and he started simplyjust, you know, pinging me a
little bit, persuading me tomeet with Bob Mendenhall, my
predecessor, asking me to say,Hey, this may seem different
than what you might haveanticipated, but it's something
that I think you'd beparticularly well suited for.
It's an organization.
Organization.
As you know, Eloy, a little bitof wg.
It's an organization that isstudent first and student
(03:49):
obsessed, that has a tech firstmindset.
How does technology enable thedisruptions and the innovations
that we, that we intend tobetter serve our students?
And certainly three things Ithink came together somewhat.
One is an interest and a passionfor how education can be a great
catalyst for people to changetheir lives for the better.
(04:09):
Second background that I had intechnology and how can
technology also shape how wethink about the practices and
processes within highereducation to make it more
accessible, more relevant, moreaffordable, more
student-centered, morepersonalized, all those
dimensions was something.
And third, it was also anopportunity for me personally to
see how the way in which I couldlead, could continue to
(04:32):
innovate, can reinvent things.
Can fundamentally have an impacton the lives of those that I
lead here at wgu in developing,advancing the culture of wgu.
And so for me personally, it'salso had a real opportunity to
make a difference in the livesof those with whom I associate.
And hopefully they can say thatthey're better because of their
association with me.
(04:52):
And so those all came togetherand here I am somewhat back
again to higher educationbecause I didn't come through
those academic ranks that youoften see.
Within the leadership of highereducation
Eloy (05:04):
well, W G u I think was in an interesting point in time
continuing to grow and given itspresence online, given the
changing use of technology, itprobably made sense to look at
somebody who had thatexperience, that user design
experience.
And I think you brought all thatwith you.
Is there anything from youreducation experience that you
(05:25):
bring with you into this job?
Anything that, that struck youas you were a, you know an
undergrad or, or working in, inyour professional life that That
you think is relevant to you, toyour situation there at W G U?
Scott (05:38):
there's probably a couple things.
One that that is all about the,how we think about the quality
of an education.
And one thing that I think Istarted recognizing as I was
associating with Brigham YoungUniversity and.
Interesting point there reallyquickly too, was that I was
invited to be an adjunctprofessor or an adjunct faculty.
(05:58):
I guess if you'll, I dunno if Iwould ever make the mistake
again of calling myself aprofessor.
So, but adjunct faculty andadjunct teaching about
entrepreneurship and productmanagement in the business
school down at the Merit Schoolof Management at B Y U.
And one of the interestingthings that, that came about is
because a lot of the things thatI was being exposed to was.
(06:20):
Whether or not the things thatthey were teaching and the
things that the students werebeing required to learn, whether
they were actually relevant tothe world of work, particularly
within the technology sectorthat I was coming from, is it
seemed like there was adisconnect.
And so the seminars that we'dgive and the lectures would give
became incredibly valuable tothe students, at least as I saw,
because they started seeing howwhat they needed to learn and
(06:43):
what they were learning, how itwas actually gonna apply to the
opportunities that they weregonna pursue.
So there's an element about thatthat I started recognizing.
The other big thing is that muchof what I have observed too was
that.
S you know, the faculty stillhad more of an a bias towards
what is it That there was theirfield of interest or their field
(07:04):
of research that they wannaadvance.
And there was still seeminglythat disconnect between actually
putting the students at thecenter of everything they did.
How did they.
Think about increasing theprobability that they would
master the concepts that theywere teaching.
How did they increase theirunderstanding of how what they
learned applied to theopportunities they're gonna
pursue?
How did they increase theirability to support them with all
(07:25):
the disruption that thesestudents may be dealing with at
times, like those were allsecondary thoughts to'em, and so
it was helping me also kind of.
You know, recognize that in myown experience with education,
that we think that there aremany ways by which we can make
it more student-centered, thatwe can make it more relevant to
the future, that they're,they're gonna be part of in
(07:46):
creating.
And so those are elements to it,and certainly as, as I became
more directly associated withwg, other factors around
affordability and service modelsand all the co-curricular things
that get designed around.
What I now more often call theemerging adult experience.
Like those start to become aninteresting set of issues that I
(08:09):
think we're grappling with andyou're always trying to figure
out how to make it more directlyfocused on the education as I
define it, by the way, is theacquisition of knowledge, skill,
and ability, like if that's yourprimary purpose.
How does everything that you doincrease the success in
delivering that valueproposition rather than letting
things become purposes orproducts or services in and of
(08:31):
themselves.
And so those are some of thethings that I, that I was have
been drawing from regulated tosay.
Hey, for us to really deliverthe value proposition and help
people change their lives forthe better, is it centered on
their success?
Is the primary beneficiary, isit relevant?
Is it accessible?
And traversable, those thingsstart to become
Eloy (08:50):
Yeah, no, I couldn't agree more.
That student centeredness iscertainly a great recipe for
success and.
Given that you've now, you'renow in your seventh year the
board at the, at W G U made theright decision.
let's talk more about G U Scott,for those listeners who are not
as familiar with the story of WG U as I am, can you tell us a
(09:14):
little bit about the university,its history, who you serve, and,
and a little bit about yourmission?
Scott (09:20):
as you mentioned in your intro founded over 25 years ago,
1997, January of 1997 that itwas actually the product of a
lot of governors of 19 differentWestern states coming together,
governors from both politicalparties representing of quite a
diversity of states across theWestern us, like they actually
(09:41):
recognized that they all sharedone thing around this particular
item.
All of'em had their publicinstitutions.
All of'em invested significantlythrough their state budgets, but
they, what they recognize isthat, They did not have all the
residents or this, you know, oftheir respective states
participating in those publicsystems of higher education.
They weren't able to access andserve the very diverse
(10:01):
population of individuals withintheir states.
And so they were investing in,in a solution or an approach to
how do you dramatically expandaccess to high quality education
for all those that aren'tparticipating in it.
You've heard this before, Eloyis like, one of the simple
references was how do we helpthose that have some college but
no degree?
How do we help those individualsactually attain the credentials
(10:24):
they need that are a key signalto them advancing in the
opportunity?
And why are they doing this?
Because it's also in theireconomic interests.
It's in their communion, socialinterests that they have for
their respective states.
Like the more that they haveparticipated in the opportunity,
the more it actually compoundsthe benefit for everyone.
And so.
That's what W G U was founded onis the simple purpose of how do
(10:45):
you expand access to highquality education so people can
change their lives for thebetter, so they can participate
in and contribute to theircommunities and the societies in
which they which they are partof.
And so these governors createdthis institution utilizing two
initial things that, that Iwould highlight.
One is, You referenced briefly,which is Governor Roy Roamer out
(11:06):
of Colorado was a huge advocatefor competency.
He would often tell a storyabout the pilot.
You know, he is like, I don'treally care where you learn how
to pilot a plane.
I just need to know whetheryou're competent to pilot the
plane.
Right.
And so that idea gave anchoringto this competency based
approach to education, that itwas mastery or proficiency in
the subject matter that was moreimportant than the time it took
(11:28):
you to develop that mastery.
The other dimension came fromGovernor Levitt in many ways,
who certainly in 1996 when theidea began emerging, and then 97
when founded, like this is stillthe early days of the internet
the vast majority of thepopulation didn't have email
addresses yet.
They didn't necessarily have a ll online, you know, they didn't
have access to those things, buthe certainly believed, like many
(11:51):
did in that time that theinternet was gonna dramatically
change and democratize things ina.
That we had not previouslyexperienced.
And so out of that emerged, w gO, how, how do we better serve
those that could largely be capclassified as working learners?
Individuals who are, have manyother demands on their time,
(12:12):
full-time jobs.
They may have family, they maybe older than your traditional
college student.
They may be in rural populationsor military or first generation
students.
These are those ones that havenot historically participated at
the same high rates.
As individuals may who would beparticipating that come from
more privileged backgrounds orhigher incomes, stratta.
(12:35):
And so that is still core to ourmission.
We know the huge value thateducation is in helping people
change their lives.
But if it's not accessible, ifit's not affordable, if it's not
traversable, meaningcompletable, like, then why are
we investing in only this modelof public, you know systems of
higher education.
Like there needs to be space formany more models.
(12:57):
So that many more can actuallyacquire those credentials and
the knowledge and skills theyneed to access the opportunity.
And so that's where WG is todayand we certainly are very
different than than thatoriginal idea.
And we've added many moreelements
Eloy (13:13):
So one of the key elements, that's certainly been
key to, to the success of W G Uis this competency-based
education model that you talkedabout.
W G U is a pioneer in C B E aswe call it.
In fact, you know, when I waschancellor of the California
Community Colleges, We use the WG U C B E model as an example of
(13:39):
what we were designing for whenwe created Albright College.
So tell us about your C B Emodel.
And you were also recentlymentioned in a bipartisan piece
of legislation from SenatorsMitt Romney and John
Hickenlooper that would finallyprovide some statutory language
and authorization for C B E.
(14:01):
Tell us a little bit about thateffort and why codifying C B E
is needed.
Scott (14:08):
Yeah, the it's certainly been a privilege to associate
with you Eloy and our endeavorsin this regard because we know
that even as effective as acredit hour may have been, or a
seat time may have been in a, in
Eloy (14:21):
or
Scott (14:21):
measuring and managing or monitoring or not effective.
Yeah.
Monitoring, learning that'sprobably.
Apropo, the title of yourpodcast, Steven is like, yeah.
Has anyone really investigatedthe credit hour and how
effective?
It's certainly I think we haveover generations taken certain
things as being matter of factrather than whether they
(14:43):
actually work.
And so the competency-basedmodel that we have really
implemented, WG probably designsaround a couple key things and
or three things I'll try tohighlight.
One is, In a competency basedapproach, you have to work
really hard to ensure that thelearning outcomes at a unit of a
course or a module or a program,meaning the credentials, like
(15:06):
you have to know that thoselearning outcomes are relevant
to the skills and competence orthe knowledge and.
Capability that individuals needin the opportunities that
they're pursuing.
This is one of the ways by whichbeing very deliberate about
designing for what is it thatyou need to master so that you
can be better, better ready forthe opportunities you're
(15:27):
pursuing.
That is one of the core elementsof our competency-based design
and today, having that level ofdetail has also allowed us to
map it to the skills library inthe world of work that are
showing up increasingly, jobroles, et cetera.
The second key consideration is,is that when you design that
way, That you actually havecriterion reference assessments,
(15:48):
which is, well, you have to bereally clear about how you're
assessing that competency andthat that our instructional
faculty and all those who havethat subject matter expertise
around not only instructionaldesign but assessment design and
all the psychometrics that goalong with it, is like you have
to know that if in factindividuals are, are passing
(16:08):
these exams or theseassessments, if you will, that
you know they have highintegrity around verified
competency.
Now the third key part of thatcomes to how do you redesign the
instructional model around that,including the evaluation of, of
a student's proficiency ortheir, their levels of
competency.
And we've kind of unbundled thatfaculty model where we've really
(16:29):
said, you know, we wannaleverage all the best content
out there and make thatavailable to you.
We wanna provide morepersonalized instruction down at
a course level so you can havedirect access to the expert.
More on a one-on-one basisbecause of the lecture, which
are most, what most peopleexperience is just content.
It's really about how ourindividual or how our faculty
(16:49):
helping an individual studentprogress in their own mastery of
that content.
And the other key piece of thatis the mentoring model, which is
the mentor who are reallyhelping them connect all the
dots across their program to sayit's actually the integrative
competency that you need todevelop across those programs
too.
Of course we have ourevaluation, our evaluator model
(17:11):
that says those who areevaluating the proficiency of
the students are different fromthose who designed the
curriculum are different fromthe faculty who teach the
curriculum.
And so you have a high integritymodel around that.
The last thing, if I can Eloybefore I go too long, simply say
is that competency base is notsomething we invented.
I think you're right, which iswe see ourselves as pioneers in
(17:33):
it because of our design andscaling of the model that we've
had.
Competency basis existed for along time, and I often say is
like most students have probablyexperienced it because there are
licensure programs in medicine,bar exams and C P A exams, you
know, you name it.
Like there's plenty of exams outthere that individuals have to
(17:53):
take and pass to effectively bedeemed competent to practice
that which they're gonnapractice.
And so it already exists withina lot of educational domains.
The other thing I just simplyask individuals is to just think
of that class that you realizethat going to the lecture wasn't
that important for you todevelop mastery of something.
And if you just could take thetest right then and there, or at
(18:15):
least within a week rather thanwaiting to the end of the term,
like you would've alreadydemonstrated your competency in
that particular subject matter.
But this is where that seat timemodel, like we've often left it
to just sit there and go, oh, notime is the measure.
Of whether or not someone hasdeveloped mastery versus letting
the time vary and letting thestandard for learning be
(18:37):
constant across individuals,
Detached audio (18:39):
S
Eloy (18:39):
So tell us about the legislation that that I
mentioned from Senator Romneyand, and Senator Hickenlooper.
What what is that attempting todo and, and, and why do you
think we need to codify C B E I?
Scott (18:55):
most of your listeners may be surprised by this'cause
WG has now been around for morethan a quarter century.
There are many otherinstitutions have reasonably
scaled cb, you know,competency-based programs and
courses that are available outthere.
And, but maybe we should be tooshocked mean the pace of
legislative progress is not whatit used to be.
It certainly seems to move in aglacial pace.
(19:16):
But what what's somewhatsurprising to me even being new
to higher ed is that all of the,the, the construct, the policy
framework in whichcompetency-based education today
exists is a purely a regulatoryone, which really means it's
under the rules and guidanceprovided by the Department of
Education.
And it's certainly thedepartment itself is operating
(19:39):
within the framework that hasbeen provided from a legislation
standpoint, meaning the HigherEducation Act, et cetera, that
they can give guidance fordifferent pedagogical models,
different term-based constructs,et cetera.
But that's been the.
The model by which the CB hasexisted.
And the challenge with thatsometimes, as you certainly
(19:59):
know, is administrations comeand go.
They can change theirperspectives and opinions about
what should be the frameworksfor that establish the rules by
when institutions and programsand students operate.
And competency-based educationis not even referenced in
statutory language, meaning inthe legal language of law, like
(20:19):
it's not referenced anywhere.
And so this is pretty important.
Because now with 2025 plusinstitutions who have reasonably
scaled enrollment in programsthat are competency based, wg
obviously at large scale in thisspace, that it's the importance
of it means it's dramaticallyincreases the, you know, what is
(20:41):
it, it's like the stamp ofcredibility.
It's like the kind of license toinnovate more now around
competency and pedagogicalmodels that ultimately achieve
what all of us want, which is.
Individuals accessing highquality education, ensuring
accountability and qualityaround the outcomes of that
education model.
That's actually, by the way,Eloy, one of the key things
(21:03):
about the language is that it,it is increasing the
accountability for suchprograms, for delivering on
completion, great relevancy tothe workforce, you know,
economic immobility outcomes,like those are also part of the
language that's being advancedhere.
For any new model or newinnovation, we should hold
(21:24):
ourselves accountable for itsimpact.
And if it doesn't work, then whydo we why do we legislate it or
regulate?
It's like, no, we want things towork.
And so the rules should actuallybe such that we increase
accountability for institutionsand
Detached audio (21:39):
All right.
Scott (21:39):
programs.
that's the goal, is thatcompetency base will actually
find itself into the highereducation law.
Eloy (21:47):
we, we will remain hopeful, but I think you hit on
two, you hit on two importantpoints when these questions come
up.
First of all, innovation has ahard time expressing itself in
an environment that's uncertain.
If regulation changes all thetime.
It's really hard for aninstitution to invest in
(22:08):
innovation if it doesn't know Ifthat innovation is going to be
allowed under a certainregulatory framework or not.
And I think that's certainly achallenge for you.
In the past, people havequestioned competency-based
education and, and so I thinkhaving that certainty in statute
would certainly help you andothers continue to innovate in
(22:30):
this space.
But also the accountabilitypiece, I mean, it's really hard.
To adequately compare yourselfagainst other institutions when
you're sitting out here in anenvironment that's just strictly
the regulatory environment andothers have the protection,
statutory protections.
(22:51):
So I do think both of thoseissues are key.
And so I think for thosereasons, and you've got two
great senators who really getthis and understand this, so
hopefully, hopefully they willsway their colleagues.
Scott (23:04):
think one thing to add to that, if I can, is that In
highly regulated sectors, likehigher education is especially
because of the student financecomplex that exists around that,
it it creates a risk aversionamong institutions to innovate
because of those challenges thatmay, it may present around, you
(23:25):
know, going through an auditlike g has been through, you
know, going through kind of thechallenges exist around the
money that you're spending totry to innovate.
If it could get turned off on awhim or on someone signing
something, it's like that isthat is detrimental to the
innovation disposition that weshould have within higher
education because what we havehas only worked so much.
(23:48):
And I think the data is mostlyshowing that's worked really
well for those who've come fromhigher income backgrounds.
We actually need educationworking for everyone, and we
need everyone on pathways toparticipate in the opportunity
and contribute to it.
And so we need more models ofeducation.
We need more means by whichwe're actually accessing
students.
And if there's mostly thisregulatory overhang or.
(24:11):
You know, this this aversion toinnovation because we're worried
about impact that it never givesinstitutions the opportunity to
start.
But you also hit on the otherkey point, which I think is part
of w G's knitting, and I've saidthis before, the innovation
without impact is just the badidea.
So those that are drivinginnovation also have to hold
(24:33):
themselves accountable forwhether or not that innovation
works.
And if it doesn't work, we don'twanna keep funding things that
don't work.
Where if, if W G U can also helpincrease accountability for
impact in higher education, evenfor institutions or programs
have existed forever.
That's a good thing becausewe'll actually get the resources
(24:54):
and the dollars and theattention going to those things
that are increasing access orimproving quality, reducing
costs, and increasingaffordability.
All of that's needed now morethan
Eloy (25:04):
Let's hit on quickly hit on another issue that's come up
in Congress that you and I areboth familiar with and we've
been engaged in.
That's the short-term Pellconversation.
W G U has been supportive ofthis effort.
H how would your learnersbenefit if we did have
short-term Pell come tofruition?
Scott (25:25):
I think in the short answer to that is, is like in
the immediate, or the short termis like not very much like we
don't have within our portfoliotoday credential pathways or
programs that would be typicallywithin the.
The construct of short-termprograms and there are already
rules on the books related tocredit bearing or accredited
(25:45):
programs that would already bePell eligible that are less than
a bachelor's degree or even lessthan associates.
This primarily is aroundprograms that are increasingly
needed for the rapidly change ofWorld of work.
E you and I talk about this alot, which is.
The one and done model of highered, meaning go to school after
you graduate high school,hopefully finish within four or
(26:08):
so years and get this one lumpsum thing of education and the
rest of your life should begreat.
However, the world of work ischanging so fast such that the
skills and capabilities neededin it are, we believe that it's
increasing the need for anddemand for among the students as
well as the employers.
More consistent and continualupskilling and reskilling.
(26:30):
And that's not gonna happenthrough four year pathways.
You know, this is gonna happenin short term nature.
But you also wanna know thatthose credential pathways, that
they're highly relevant to theworld of work, that they're
coming from accreditedinstitutions and bodies that
are, are being held accountablefor delivering value for the
students, that they'reaffordable and accessible.
And that's where short term PEcomes to.
(26:51):
Comes to bear that there aremany, many working learners out
there and many of those alsocoming from you know,
minoritized or disadvantagedbackgrounds who even didn't have
access.
If you'll to more traditionalpost-secondary pathways, that is
a way to dramatically expandaccess to those pathways that
are gonna be relevant to theworld work.
(27:11):
So it's not gonna impact wgustudent population in the near
term, but we see it as beingaligned with where we see the,
you know, the educational worklife cycle going in the future,
where you'll have more continualupskilling and re-skilling.
And those have to be throughshorter duration, shorter form
formats than a two or four yearor a two year master's degree.
(27:33):
You know that.
So that's how we see thathappening, and hopefully it
comes about and comes tofruition because I think we'll
see a dramatic uptake.
affordability is starting to beaddressed in a way in activating
populations reskill.
Eloy (27:48):
Well, I'm hopeful that reskilling and upskilling the
American workforce is finallystarting to settle in with our
policy makers in Washington dc Iknow many states have already
started to, I.
Go down this road, so hopefullythe federal government follows
suit here.
Quickly you touched on theissues of technology and the
(28:08):
rapidly changing technology inour society, in the workforce,
and there's talk in every cornerof the ed tech world and the
traditional higher ed worldabout things like generative AI
and its impact on post-secondaryeducation.
How are you and you, your team,thinking about technology and
Specifically G a I to betterserve your learners
Scott (28:30):
I will say that one thing that we're not particularly
concerned about is what probablygets most of the, you know,
coverage out there, is thenarrative around how students
may be utilizing it to, to fakeas if they're competent and
proficient.
And I think that's we'reprobably less concerned about
that because I do believe thatwe are, have significant
(28:52):
investment models by which youcan actually have.
Authenticated and validated thatthe individual who is
participating in the assessmentis that, that you can design the
assessments in a way that youcan't, you know, have your AI
co-pilot with you taking thetest, you know?
And but I will say that wherewe're much more encouraged is
that if AI is the nextgeneration of technology and
(29:14):
tools within the technologydomain that help us dramatically
improve.
The design and development of,of curriculum or to help us
dramatically personalize theinstruction and services and
support around the studentlifecycle across that
curriculum, if it dramaticallyincreases our ability to
increase.
(29:35):
What we like to call systemicequity.
So you can dramatically removebarriers to access, or you can
dramatically remove inherentbiases that might exist within
curriculum design, et cetera, toadvance more systemic equity.
So you increase the probabilitythat everyone can succeed.
It's in those domains where wesee artificial intelligence
(29:56):
being particularly interesting.
Two examples I'll just use oneis how we think about
instructional design.
I was even reading an articletoday that if an AI is starting
to use content produced by otherai, it could start to rapidly
degrade the value of thecontent.
But that doesn't mean that AIcan't be a successful co-pilot
(30:17):
in helping our instructionalfaculty or our design faculty in
particular, how do we betteridentify the efficacy of
different content options thatare out there and increasing the
quality and relevancy increasingstudent?
Successfully learning andmastering that content that I
think will get better atdesigning instructional content
(30:39):
itself and even assessing andevaluating the different content
options are out there, so itimproves the quality of the
curriculum itself.
The other key area that we'rereally excited about is that if
with large language models inparticular versus more
generative artificialintelligence or.
I think the big Sentin AI is theone that has us all worried that
(31:01):
the AI start thinking it'salive, you know?
But what we're really excitedabout large language models is
that if you get the rightdataset going into it, if there
were ever a tool that coulddramatically increase the
context and personalization ofthe instruction being provided,
that's it.
Meaning that even with ourthousands, of course instructors
and thousands of mentors andevaluators like.
(31:23):
Here's now, technology candramatically improve the
effectiveness of all of thoseinstructors because it can be
very specifically relevant tohow that individual student is
in their mastery journey of thisparticular subject matter.
It, it just is much moreeffective and proficient and
speedy, and such that it's moretimely and relevant to that one
(31:44):
student.
That for us embodies our culturebelief of one by one, you're now
solving for each individualstudent and only advancing
outcomes one student at a time.
And so we're really excitedabout that personalization or
contextualization of instructionand learning in a way that
dramatically increases theprobability that every student
(32:05):
is successful.
And to me, that leads us to thatkind of mic drop moment in
higher ed that we love to talkabout, which is, Regardless of
who you are in the backgroundyou have, or gender or sexual
orientation or whatever it isabout your identities, like
regardless of all those thingsthat you have an
Eloy (32:22):
Right.
Scott (32:22):
probability of success is that that's where the
personalization learning, Ithink we'll see a step function
increase as we start to apply AIas a
Eloy (32:30):
Well, I think that's what excites me the most is the more
personalized we can make theexperience, the more we can
reach learners of allbackgrounds, regardless of where
they're at in their journey.
So Scott, let me ask you onemore question as we begin to
close.
Where do you see W G U goingover the next five years, and
(32:52):
what excites you about thatjourney?
Scott (32:54):
we certainly are, are, we are not done yet.
I think we like to talk abouthow does WGS innovation continue
to hopefully bring about a titleeffect across the whole sector
as to how we rethink design of.
Development of curriculum, howwe think about instructional
models and student lifecycle,how we think about bending the
arc of the cost curve in highereducation, not just for W G U,
(33:17):
but for all of us.
There's plenty of being writtenabout that right now, but for Wg
U particularly, I think maybetwo things that's worth
highlighting.
One is, We, we love to thinkabout how do we dramatically
increase our understanding ofthe diverse learner profiles
that we're serving and thediverse learner profiles exist
out there broadly, and where wejust ended our conversation
(33:38):
about how technology will enablesome of these things.
The thing that we love to talkabout is personalization of
instruction and learning.
That every individual isactually being served as they
need to be served.
So it dramatically increasestheir probability of success.
And so we see this as thecritical input to truly
establishing a systemic equitymodel of higher education, where
(33:59):
in fact that we are we aredesigning as if we only have one
student enrolled and the wholeof W G U.
It makes it feel like that onestudent as if it's all designed
for them and that one student.
And that's, I think somethingthat we are, will be a forever
pursuit for us.
And that does require bothunderstanding the diversity of
(34:21):
the learner profiles.
That it's not just aboutdemographic context, that's only
just an input to understandinghow they may experience or even
infer different things aboutwhat we're designing.
That's just an input.
It's not at all those things aredefining their worth and their
capacity for learning.
We're trying to adapt as to howthey approach learning and how
different tools support them,particularly increase their
(34:44):
mastery.
The other thing I do think we'recontemplating is how do we
continue to expand the portfolioof programs and offerings both
horizontally and vertically.
We know, as we hinted at, isthat the future of learning and
work is more continual in itsnotion rather than one and done.
And that means that our verticalstacking and scaffolding of our,
(35:05):
our credential and pathwayofferings will be very different
in the future.
And at the same time, I thinkwe'll start to discover that the
breadth of the domains in whichwe're offering programs will
continue to expand.
And that's exciting to us.
And lastly I maybe just mentionis that we know that there are
many who are feeling somewhatdisillusioned or they're feeling
like their pathways are notaccessible, they're not
(35:27):
affordable.
We have a very deliberate modelof how do you continue to reach
and access those individuals sothey can be activated into those
pathways, because if there wereever a time that they need it,
now more than ever, we don'twant any of these individuals
feeling like they're stranded.
We don't want any of'emself-selecting out of education
because they think it's notaccessible, affordable.
(35:50):
And so we're continuing to bevery deliberate about increasing
our reach and support for theseindividuals wherever they are
geographically.
Whatever economic circumstancethey find'em themselves in, and
I'll just give you a taste ofthat, is that we are
dramatically improving therepresentation from students of
color and from low incomebackgrounds.
That's a very deliberate efforton our part, so you can have
(36:11):
more equitable.
Access.
And that combined with thepersonalization of learning
means that the real equityhappens.
It's not just enrollment, it'sactually attainment and, and
economic and social mobilityoutcomes.
that work is that continues todefine the pursuit of the
mission that these governorsfirst founded.
That education helps peoplechange their lives
Eloy (36:32):
Well, I think that equity note is a great note to end on
Scott.
Thanks for joining me.
Really appreciate the work thatyou're leading and really
appreciate you spending sometime with me here on the rant.
Scott (36:44):
It is been a pleasure.
Eloy (36:45):
Well, you've been listening to my conversation
with Scott Pulsifer of WesternGovernor's University.
Thanks everyone for joining mehere on the rant.
If you enjoyed this conversationwith Scott, please hit the like
button.
Let us know what you thoughtabout the interview and what you
think about skills, skills-basedhiring and competency-based
education.
And to hear more episodes,subscribe to this YouTube
(37:06):
channel and continue to followus on your favorite podcast
platform.
Thanks for joining us,everybody, and we'll see you
soon.
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz Oakley and welcome back to
the ramp, the podcast where wepull back the curtain and break
down the people, the policies,and the politics of our higher
education system.
In this episode, I get to talkto Scott Pulsifer, president and
c e o of Western GovernorsUniversity, W G U.
(00:30):
W G U is one of the trailblazinguniversities built to serve
working learners through acompetency-based education
model.
Since its founding in 1997, W GU has grown to serve more than
150,000 learners throughout thecountry.
We will discuss W's roots, itsevolution, and how it's
(00:53):
harnessing technology to betterserve learners of all
backgrounds.
So Scott, welcome to the rent.
Scott (01:00):
Eli, it's great to be with you.
Thanks for having me
Eloy (01:03):
great to have you and thanks for all the work that
you're leading.
And you've been leading W G Usince around 2016, if I have
that right.
Throughout that time, you'veseen rapid growth of your
university, you've seen a lot ofchanges take hold.
You've lived through a pandemic.
However, before we get into theW G U story, let's get to know
(01:27):
your story.
Scott, tell us about your highereducation journey and what led
you to this leadership positionat W G U.
Scott (01:36):
As much as I don't like starting with myself, I suppose
it's a little bit different thanmany who found themselves in a
position like this.
it was a combination of, Isuppose, a lot of preparation
through other experiences thatmay have not been within higher
education a growing affinity forit, and how education can
certainly change the lives ofothers for the better.
(01:59):
But then a little bit ofserendipity and, and maybe
chance or coincidence at least.
And, and that is to say thatmost of my prior experience
prior to WG was within theprivate sector, particularly
within technology and softwarestartups and Amazon.
and prior to that, I was inmanagement consulting way back
early in my career.
But beginning around 2010, Ipersonally started associated
(02:21):
with my undergraduate almaMater, Brigham Young University
that's also based here in Utahwhere I'm now based.
And I start having theopportunity to participate on an
advisory board, started guestlecturing and part participating
in seminar series.
And so I started gettingconnected again with all of
those you know, those nostalgicexperiences that I had in terms
(02:42):
of how education helped shape myfuture and the prospects I had
in my life.
And that was quite fun.
But what was interesting aroundthat time too, is I was working
up in Seattle, Washington andAmazon.
The executive recruiter that Istarted to get to know because
he'd been trying to recruit meto other technology firms.
It happened to be the case thatafter I had already chosen to
(03:05):
leave Amazon and join anothersoftware startup that happened
to be headquartered here in SaltLake City, Utah, and my, I and
my family had already made themove that it turned out that w g
had actually hired thisexecutive recruiter and the
partner who on point.
And had had known that I'd takenan opportunity that brought me
(03:26):
to Utah and he started simplyjust, you know, pinging me a
little bit, persuading me tomeet with Bob Mendenhall, my
predecessor, asking me to say,Hey, this may seem different
than what you might haveanticipated, but it's something
that I think you'd beparticularly well suited for.
It's an organization.
Organization.
As you know, Eloy, a little bitof wg.
It's an organization that isstudent first and student
(03:49):
obsessed, that has a tech firstmindset.
How does technology enable thedisruptions and the innovations
that we, that we intend tobetter serve our students?
And certainly three things Ithink came together somewhat.
One is an interest and a passionfor how education can be a great
catalyst for people to changetheir lives for the better.
(04:09):
Second background that I had intechnology and how can
technology also shape how wethink about the practices and
processes within highereducation to make it more
accessible, more relevant, moreaffordable, more
student-centered, morepersonalized, all those
dimensions was something.
And third, it was also anopportunity for me personally to
see how the way in which I couldlead, could continue to
(04:32):
innovate, can reinvent things.
Can fundamentally have an impacton the lives of those that I
lead here at wgu in developing,advancing the culture of wgu.
And so for me personally, it'salso had a real opportunity to
make a difference in the livesof those with whom I associate.
And hopefully they can say thatthey're better because of their
association with me.
(04:52):
And so those all came togetherand here I am somewhat back
again to higher educationbecause I didn't come through
those academic ranks that youoften see.
Within the leadership of highereducation
Eloy (05:04):
well, W G u I think was in an interesting point in time
continuing to grow and given itspresence online, given the
changing use of technology, itprobably made sense to look at
somebody who had thatexperience, that user design
experience.
And I think you brought all thatwith you.
Is there anything from youreducation experience that you
(05:25):
bring with you into this job?
Anything that, that struck youas you were a, you know an
undergrad or, or working in, inyour professional life that That
you think is relevant to you, toyour situation there at W G U?
Scott (05:38):
there's probably a couple things.
One that that is all about the,how we think about the quality
of an education.
And one thing that I think Istarted recognizing as I was
associating with Brigham YoungUniversity and.
Interesting point there reallyquickly too, was that I was
invited to be an adjunctprofessor or an adjunct faculty.
(05:58):
I guess if you'll, I dunno if Iwould ever make the mistake
again of calling myself aprofessor.
So, but adjunct faculty andadjunct teaching about
entrepreneurship and productmanagement in the business
school down at the Merit Schoolof Management at B Y U.
And one of the interestingthings that, that came about is
because a lot of the things thatI was being exposed to was.
(06:20):
Whether or not the things thatthey were teaching and the
things that the students werebeing required to learn, whether
they were actually relevant tothe world of work, particularly
within the technology sectorthat I was coming from, is it
seemed like there was adisconnect.
And so the seminars that we'dgive and the lectures would give
became incredibly valuable tothe students, at least as I saw,
because they started seeing howwhat they needed to learn and
(06:43):
what they were learning, how itwas actually gonna apply to the
opportunities that they weregonna pursue.
So there's an element about thatthat I started recognizing.
The other big thing is that muchof what I have observed too was
that.
S you know, the faculty stillhad more of an a bias towards
what is it That there was theirfield of interest or their field
(07:04):
of research that they wannaadvance.
And there was still seeminglythat disconnect between actually
putting the students at thecenter of everything they did.
How did they.
Think about increasing theprobability that they would
master the concepts that theywere teaching.
How did they increase theirunderstanding of how what they
learned applied to theopportunities they're gonna
pursue?
How did they increase theirability to support them with all
(07:25):
the disruption that thesestudents may be dealing with at
times, like those were allsecondary thoughts to'em, and so
it was helping me also kind of.
You know, recognize that in myown experience with education,
that we think that there aremany ways by which we can make
it more student-centered, thatwe can make it more relevant to
the future, that they're,they're gonna be part of in
(07:46):
creating.
And so those are elements to it,and certainly as, as I became
more directly associated withwg, other factors around
affordability and service modelsand all the co-curricular things
that get designed around.
What I now more often call theemerging adult experience.
Like those start to become aninteresting set of issues that I
(08:09):
think we're grappling with andyou're always trying to figure
out how to make it more directlyfocused on the education as I
define it, by the way, is theacquisition of knowledge, skill,
and ability, like if that's yourprimary purpose.
How does everything that you doincrease the success in
delivering that valueproposition rather than letting
things become purposes orproducts or services in and of
(08:31):
themselves.
And so those are some of thethings that I, that I was have
been drawing from regulated tosay.
Hey, for us to really deliverthe value proposition and help
people change their lives forthe better, is it centered on
their success?
Is the primary beneficiary, isit relevant?
Is it accessible?
And traversable, those thingsstart to become
Eloy (08:50):
Yeah, no, I couldn't agree more.
That student centeredness iscertainly a great recipe for
success and.
Given that you've now, you'renow in your seventh year the
board at the, at W G U made theright decision.
let's talk more about G U Scott,for those listeners who are not
as familiar with the story of WG U as I am, can you tell us a
(09:14):
little bit about the university,its history, who you serve, and,
and a little bit about yourmission?
Scott (09:20):
as you mentioned in your intro founded over 25 years ago,
1997, January of 1997 that itwas actually the product of a
lot of governors of 19 differentWestern states coming together,
governors from both politicalparties representing of quite a
diversity of states across theWestern us, like they actually
(09:41):
recognized that they all sharedone thing around this particular
item.
All of'em had their publicinstitutions.
All of'em invested significantlythrough their state budgets, but
they, what they recognize isthat, They did not have all the
residents or this, you know, oftheir respective states
participating in those publicsystems of higher education.
They weren't able to access andserve the very diverse
(10:01):
population of individuals withintheir states.
And so they were investing in,in a solution or an approach to
how do you dramatically expandaccess to high quality education
for all those that aren'tparticipating in it.
You've heard this before, Eloyis like, one of the simple
references was how do we helpthose that have some college but
no degree?
How do we help those individualsactually attain the credentials
(10:24):
they need that are a key signalto them advancing in the
opportunity?
And why are they doing this?
Because it's also in theireconomic interests.
It's in their communion, socialinterests that they have for
their respective states.
Like the more that they haveparticipated in the opportunity,
the more it actually compoundsthe benefit for everyone.
And so.
That's what W G U was founded onis the simple purpose of how do
(10:45):
you expand access to highquality education so people can
change their lives for thebetter, so they can participate
in and contribute to theircommunities and the societies in
which they which they are partof.
And so these governors createdthis institution utilizing two
initial things that, that Iwould highlight.
One is, You referenced briefly,which is Governor Roy Roamer out
(11:06):
of Colorado was a huge advocatefor competency.
He would often tell a storyabout the pilot.
You know, he is like, I don'treally care where you learn how
to pilot a plane.
I just need to know whetheryou're competent to pilot the
plane.
Right.
And so that idea gave anchoringto this competency based
approach to education, that itwas mastery or proficiency in
the subject matter that was moreimportant than the time it took
(11:28):
you to develop that mastery.
The other dimension came fromGovernor Levitt in many ways,
who certainly in 1996 when theidea began emerging, and then 97
when founded, like this is stillthe early days of the internet
the vast majority of thepopulation didn't have email
addresses yet.
They didn't necessarily have a ll online, you know, they didn't
have access to those things, buthe certainly believed, like many
(11:51):
did in that time that theinternet was gonna dramatically
change and democratize things ina.
That we had not previouslyexperienced.
And so out of that emerged, w gO, how, how do we better serve
those that could largely be capclassified as working learners?
Individuals who are, have manyother demands on their time,
(12:12):
full-time jobs.
They may have family, they maybe older than your traditional
college student.
They may be in rural populationsor military or first generation
students.
These are those ones that havenot historically participated at
the same high rates.
As individuals may who would beparticipating that come from
more privileged backgrounds orhigher incomes, stratta.
(12:35):
And so that is still core to ourmission.
We know the huge value thateducation is in helping people
change their lives.
But if it's not accessible, ifit's not affordable, if it's not
traversable, meaningcompletable, like, then why are
we investing in only this modelof public, you know systems of
higher education.
Like there needs to be space formany more models.
(12:57):
So that many more can actuallyacquire those credentials and
the knowledge and skills theyneed to access the opportunity.
And so that's where WG is todayand we certainly are very
different than than thatoriginal idea.
And we've added many moreelements
Eloy (13:13):
So one of the key elements, that's certainly been
key to, to the success of W G Uis this competency-based
education model that you talkedabout.
W G U is a pioneer in C B E aswe call it.
In fact, you know, when I waschancellor of the California
Community Colleges, We use the WG U C B E model as an example of
(13:39):
what we were designing for whenwe created Albright College.
So tell us about your C B Emodel.
And you were also recentlymentioned in a bipartisan piece
of legislation from SenatorsMitt Romney and John
Hickenlooper that would finallyprovide some statutory language
and authorization for C B E.
(14:01):
Tell us a little bit about thateffort and why codifying C B E
is needed.
Scott (14:08):
Yeah, the it's certainly been a privilege to associate
with you Eloy and our endeavorsin this regard because we know
that even as effective as acredit hour may have been, or a
seat time may have been in a, in
Eloy (14:21):
or
Scott (14:21):
measuring and managing or monitoring or not effective.
Yeah.
Monitoring, learning that'sprobably.
Apropo, the title of yourpodcast, Steven is like, yeah.
Has anyone really investigatedthe credit hour and how
effective?
It's certainly I think we haveover generations taken certain
things as being matter of factrather than whether they
(14:43):
actually work.
And so the competency-basedmodel that we have really
implemented, WG probably designsaround a couple key things and
or three things I'll try tohighlight.
One is, In a competency basedapproach, you have to work
really hard to ensure that thelearning outcomes at a unit of a
course or a module or a program,meaning the credentials, like
(15:06):
you have to know that thoselearning outcomes are relevant
to the skills and competence orthe knowledge and.
Capability that individuals needin the opportunities that
they're pursuing.
This is one of the ways by whichbeing very deliberate about
designing for what is it thatyou need to master so that you
can be better, better ready forthe opportunities you're
(15:27):
pursuing.
That is one of the core elementsof our competency-based design
and today, having that level ofdetail has also allowed us to
map it to the skills library inthe world of work that are
showing up increasingly, jobroles, et cetera.
The second key consideration is,is that when you design that
way, That you actually havecriterion reference assessments,
(15:48):
which is, well, you have to bereally clear about how you're
assessing that competency andthat that our instructional
faculty and all those who havethat subject matter expertise
around not only instructionaldesign but assessment design and
all the psychometrics that goalong with it, is like you have
to know that if in factindividuals are, are passing
(16:08):
these exams or theseassessments, if you will, that
you know they have highintegrity around verified
competency.
Now the third key part of thatcomes to how do you redesign the
instructional model around that,including the evaluation of, of
a student's proficiency ortheir, their levels of
competency.
And we've kind of unbundled thatfaculty model where we've really
(16:29):
said, you know, we wannaleverage all the best content
out there and make thatavailable to you.
We wanna provide morepersonalized instruction down at
a course level so you can havedirect access to the expert.
More on a one-on-one basisbecause of the lecture, which
are most, what most peopleexperience is just content.
It's really about how ourindividual or how our faculty
(16:49):
helping an individual studentprogress in their own mastery of
that content.
And the other key piece of thatis the mentoring model, which is
the mentor who are reallyhelping them connect all the
dots across their program to sayit's actually the integrative
competency that you need todevelop across those programs
too.
Of course we have ourevaluation, our evaluator model
(17:11):
that says those who areevaluating the proficiency of
the students are different fromthose who designed the
curriculum are different fromthe faculty who teach the
curriculum.
And so you have a high integritymodel around that.
The last thing, if I can Eloybefore I go too long, simply say
is that competency base is notsomething we invented.
I think you're right, which iswe see ourselves as pioneers in
(17:33):
it because of our design andscaling of the model that we've
had.
Competency basis existed for along time, and I often say is
like most students have probablyexperienced it because there are
licensure programs in medicine,bar exams and C P A exams, you
know, you name it.
Like there's plenty of exams outthere that individuals have to
(17:53):
take and pass to effectively bedeemed competent to practice
that which they're gonnapractice.
And so it already exists withina lot of educational domains.
The other thing I just simplyask individuals is to just think
of that class that you realizethat going to the lecture wasn't
that important for you todevelop mastery of something.
And if you just could take thetest right then and there, or at
(18:15):
least within a week rather thanwaiting to the end of the term,
like you would've alreadydemonstrated your competency in
that particular subject matter.
But this is where that seat timemodel, like we've often left it
to just sit there and go, oh, notime is the measure.
Of whether or not someone hasdeveloped mastery versus letting
the time vary and letting thestandard for learning be
(18:37):
constant across individuals,
Detached audio (18:39):
S
Eloy (18:39):
So tell us about the legislation that that I
mentioned from Senator Romneyand, and Senator Hickenlooper.
What what is that attempting todo and, and, and why do you
think we need to codify C B E I?
Scott (18:55):
most of your listeners may be surprised by this'cause
WG has now been around for morethan a quarter century.
There are many otherinstitutions have reasonably
scaled cb, you know,competency-based programs and
courses that are available outthere.
And, but maybe we should be tooshocked mean the pace of
legislative progress is not whatit used to be.
It certainly seems to move in aglacial pace.
(19:16):
But what what's somewhatsurprising to me even being new
to higher ed is that all of the,the, the construct, the policy
framework in whichcompetency-based education today
exists is a purely a regulatoryone, which really means it's
under the rules and guidanceprovided by the Department of
Education.
And it's certainly thedepartment itself is operating
(19:39):
within the framework that hasbeen provided from a legislation
standpoint, meaning the HigherEducation Act, et cetera, that
they can give guidance fordifferent pedagogical models,
different term-based constructs,et cetera.
But that's been the.
The model by which the CB hasexisted.
And the challenge with thatsometimes, as you certainly
(19:59):
know, is administrations comeand go.
They can change theirperspectives and opinions about
what should be the frameworksfor that establish the rules by
when institutions and programsand students operate.
And competency-based educationis not even referenced in
statutory language, meaning inthe legal language of law, like
(20:19):
it's not referenced anywhere.
And so this is pretty important.
Because now with 2025 plusinstitutions who have reasonably
scaled enrollment in programsthat are competency based, wg
obviously at large scale in thisspace, that it's the importance
of it means it's dramaticallyincreases the, you know, what is
(20:41):
it, it's like the stamp ofcredibility.
It's like the kind of license toinnovate more now around
competency and pedagogicalmodels that ultimately achieve
what all of us want, which is.
Individuals accessing highquality education, ensuring
accountability and qualityaround the outcomes of that
education model.
That's actually, by the way,Eloy, one of the key things
(21:03):
about the language is that it,it is increasing the
accountability for suchprograms, for delivering on
completion, great relevancy tothe workforce, you know,
economic immobility outcomes,like those are also part of the
language that's being advancedhere.
For any new model or newinnovation, we should hold
(21:24):
ourselves accountable for itsimpact.
And if it doesn't work, then whydo we why do we legislate it or
regulate?
It's like, no, we want things towork.
And so the rules should actuallybe such that we increase
accountability for institutionsand
Detached audio (21:39):
All right.
Scott (21:39):
programs.
that's the goal, is thatcompetency base will actually
find itself into the highereducation law.
Eloy (21:47):
we, we will remain hopeful, but I think you hit on
two, you hit on two importantpoints when these questions come
up.
First of all, innovation has ahard time expressing itself in
an environment that's uncertain.
If regulation changes all thetime.
It's really hard for aninstitution to invest in
(22:08):
innovation if it doesn't know Ifthat innovation is going to be
allowed under a certainregulatory framework or not.
And I think that's certainly achallenge for you.
In the past, people havequestioned competency-based
education and, and so I thinkhaving that certainty in statute
would certainly help you andothers continue to innovate in
(22:30):
this space.
But also the accountabilitypiece, I mean, it's really hard.
To adequately compare yourselfagainst other institutions when
you're sitting out here in anenvironment that's just strictly
the regulatory environment andothers have the protection,
statutory protections.
(22:51):
So I do think both of thoseissues are key.
And so I think for thosereasons, and you've got two
great senators who really getthis and understand this, so
hopefully, hopefully they willsway their colleagues.
Scott (23:04):
think one thing to add to that, if I can, is that In
highly regulated sectors, likehigher education is especially
because of the student financecomplex that exists around that,
it it creates a risk aversionamong institutions to innovate
because of those challenges thatmay, it may present around, you
(23:25):
know, going through an auditlike g has been through, you
know, going through kind of thechallenges exist around the
money that you're spending totry to innovate.
If it could get turned off on awhim or on someone signing
something, it's like that isthat is detrimental to the
innovation disposition that weshould have within higher
education because what we havehas only worked so much.
(23:48):
And I think the data is mostlyshowing that's worked really
well for those who've come fromhigher income backgrounds.
We actually need educationworking for everyone, and we
need everyone on pathways toparticipate in the opportunity
and contribute to it.
And so we need more models ofeducation.
We need more means by whichwe're actually accessing
students.
And if there's mostly thisregulatory overhang or.
(24:11):
You know, this this aversion toinnovation because we're worried
about impact that it never givesinstitutions the opportunity to
start.
But you also hit on the otherkey point, which I think is part
of w G's knitting, and I've saidthis before, the innovation
without impact is just the badidea.
So those that are drivinginnovation also have to hold
(24:33):
themselves accountable forwhether or not that innovation
works.
And if it doesn't work, we don'twanna keep funding things that
don't work.
Where if, if W G U can also helpincrease accountability for
impact in higher education, evenfor institutions or programs
have existed forever.
That's a good thing becausewe'll actually get the resources
(24:54):
and the dollars and theattention going to those things
that are increasing access orimproving quality, reducing
costs, and increasingaffordability.
All of that's needed now morethan
Eloy (25:04):
Let's hit on quickly hit on another issue that's come up
in Congress that you and I areboth familiar with and we've
been engaged in.
That's the short-term Pellconversation.
W G U has been supportive ofthis effort.
H how would your learnersbenefit if we did have
short-term Pell come tofruition?
Scott (25:25):
I think in the short answer to that is, is like in
the immediate, or the short termis like not very much like we
don't have within our portfoliotoday credential pathways or
programs that would be typicallywithin the.
The construct of short-termprograms and there are already
rules on the books related tocredit bearing or accredited
(25:45):
programs that would already bePell eligible that are less than
a bachelor's degree or even lessthan associates.
This primarily is aroundprograms that are increasingly
needed for the rapidly change ofWorld of work.
E you and I talk about this alot, which is.
The one and done model of highered, meaning go to school after
you graduate high school,hopefully finish within four or
(26:08):
so years and get this one lumpsum thing of education and the
rest of your life should begreat.
However, the world of work ischanging so fast such that the
skills and capabilities neededin it are, we believe that it's
increasing the need for anddemand for among the students as
well as the employers.
More consistent and continualupskilling and reskilling.
(26:30):
And that's not gonna happenthrough four year pathways.
You know, this is gonna happenin short term nature.
But you also wanna know thatthose credential pathways, that
they're highly relevant to theworld of work, that they're
coming from accreditedinstitutions and bodies that
are, are being held accountablefor delivering value for the
students, that they'reaffordable and accessible.
And that's where short term PEcomes to.
(26:51):
Comes to bear that there aremany, many working learners out
there and many of those alsocoming from you know,
minoritized or disadvantagedbackgrounds who even didn't have
access.
If you'll to more traditionalpost-secondary pathways, that is
a way to dramatically expandaccess to those pathways that
are gonna be relevant to theworld work.
(27:11):
So it's not gonna impact wgustudent population in the near
term, but we see it as beingaligned with where we see the,
you know, the educational worklife cycle going in the future,
where you'll have more continualupskilling and re-skilling.
And those have to be throughshorter duration, shorter form
formats than a two or four yearor a two year master's degree.
(27:33):
You know that.
So that's how we see thathappening, and hopefully it
comes about and comes tofruition because I think we'll
see a dramatic uptake.
affordability is starting to beaddressed in a way in activating
populations reskill.
Eloy (27:48):
Well, I'm hopeful that reskilling and upskilling the
American workforce is finallystarting to settle in with our
policy makers in Washington dc Iknow many states have already
started to, I.
Go down this road, so hopefullythe federal government follows
suit here.
Quickly you touched on theissues of technology and the
(28:08):
rapidly changing technology inour society, in the workforce,
and there's talk in every cornerof the ed tech world and the
traditional higher ed worldabout things like generative AI
and its impact on post-secondaryeducation.
How are you and you, your team,thinking about technology and
Specifically G a I to betterserve your learners
Scott (28:30):
I will say that one thing that we're not particularly
concerned about is what probablygets most of the, you know,
coverage out there, is thenarrative around how students
may be utilizing it to, to fakeas if they're competent and
proficient.
And I think that's we'reprobably less concerned about
that because I do believe thatwe are, have significant
(28:52):
investment models by which youcan actually have.
Authenticated and validated thatthe individual who is
participating in the assessmentis that, that you can design the
assessments in a way that youcan't, you know, have your AI
co-pilot with you taking thetest, you know?
And but I will say that wherewe're much more encouraged is
that if AI is the nextgeneration of technology and
(29:14):
tools within the technologydomain that help us dramatically
improve.
The design and development of,of curriculum or to help us
dramatically personalize theinstruction and services and
support around the studentlifecycle across that
curriculum, if it dramaticallyincreases our ability to
increase.
(29:35):
What we like to call systemicequity.
So you can dramatically removebarriers to access, or you can
dramatically remove inherentbiases that might exist within
curriculum design, et cetera, toadvance more systemic equity.
So you increase the probabilitythat everyone can succeed.
It's in those domains where wesee artificial intelligence
(29:56):
being particularly interesting.
Two examples I'll just use oneis how we think about
instructional design.
I was even reading an articletoday that if an AI is starting
to use content produced by otherai, it could start to rapidly
degrade the value of thecontent.
But that doesn't mean that AIcan't be a successful co-pilot
(30:17):
in helping our instructionalfaculty or our design faculty in
particular, how do we betteridentify the efficacy of
different content options thatare out there and increasing the
quality and relevancy increasingstudent?
Successfully learning andmastering that content that I
think will get better atdesigning instructional content
(30:39):
itself and even assessing andevaluating the different content
options are out there, so itimproves the quality of the
curriculum itself.
The other key area that we'rereally excited about is that if
with large language models inparticular versus more
generative artificialintelligence or.
I think the big Sentin AI is theone that has us all worried that
(31:01):
the AI start thinking it'salive, you know?
But what we're really excitedabout large language models is
that if you get the rightdataset going into it, if there
were ever a tool that coulddramatically increase the
context and personalization ofthe instruction being provided,
that's it.
Meaning that even with ourthousands, of course instructors
and thousands of mentors andevaluators like.
(31:23):
Here's now, technology candramatically improve the
effectiveness of all of thoseinstructors because it can be
very specifically relevant tohow that individual student is
in their mastery journey of thisparticular subject matter.
It, it just is much moreeffective and proficient and
speedy, and such that it's moretimely and relevant to that one
(31:44):
student.
That for us embodies our culturebelief of one by one, you're now
solving for each individualstudent and only advancing
outcomes one student at a time.
And so we're really excitedabout that personalization or
contextualization of instructionand learning in a way that
dramatically increases theprobability that every student
(32:05):
is successful.
And to me, that leads us to thatkind of mic drop moment in
higher ed that we love to talkabout, which is, Regardless of
who you are in the backgroundyou have, or gender or sexual
orientation or whatever it isabout your identities, like
regardless of all those thingsthat you have an
Eloy (32:22):
Right.
Scott (32:22):
probability of success is that that's where the
personalization learning, Ithink we'll see a step function
increase as we start to apply AIas a
Eloy (32:30):
Well, I think that's what excites me the most is the more
personalized we can make theexperience, the more we can
reach learners of allbackgrounds, regardless of where
they're at in their journey.
So Scott, let me ask you onemore question as we begin to
close.
Where do you see W G U goingover the next five years, and
(32:52):
what excites you about thatjourney?
Scott (32:54):
we certainly are, are, we are not done yet.
I think we like to talk abouthow does WGS innovation continue
to hopefully bring about a titleeffect across the whole sector
as to how we rethink design of.
Development of curriculum, howwe think about instructional
models and student lifecycle,how we think about bending the
arc of the cost curve in highereducation, not just for W G U,
(33:17):
but for all of us.
There's plenty of being writtenabout that right now, but for Wg
U particularly, I think maybetwo things that's worth
highlighting.
One is, We, we love to thinkabout how do we dramatically
increase our understanding ofthe diverse learner profiles
that we're serving and thediverse learner profiles exist
out there broadly, and where wejust ended our conversation
(33:38):
about how technology will enablesome of these things.
The thing that we love to talkabout is personalization of
instruction and learning.
That every individual isactually being served as they
need to be served.
So it dramatically increasestheir probability of success.
And so we see this as thecritical input to truly
establishing a systemic equitymodel of higher education, where
(33:59):
in fact that we are we aredesigning as if we only have one
student enrolled and the wholeof W G U.
It makes it feel like that onestudent as if it's all designed
for them and that one student.
And that's, I think somethingthat we are, will be a forever
pursuit for us.
And that does require bothunderstanding the diversity of
(34:21):
the learner profiles.
That it's not just aboutdemographic context, that's only
just an input to understandinghow they may experience or even
infer different things aboutwhat we're designing.
That's just an input.
It's not at all those things aredefining their worth and their
capacity for learning.
We're trying to adapt as to howthey approach learning and how
different tools support them,particularly increase their
(34:44):
mastery.
The other thing I do think we'recontemplating is how do we
continue to expand the portfolioof programs and offerings both
horizontally and vertically.
We know, as we hinted at, isthat the future of learning and
work is more continual in itsnotion rather than one and done.
And that means that our verticalstacking and scaffolding of our,
(35:05):
our credential and pathwayofferings will be very different
in the future.
And at the same time, I thinkwe'll start to discover that the
breadth of the domains in whichwe're offering programs will
continue to expand.
And that's exciting to us.
And lastly I maybe just mentionis that we know that there are
many who are feeling somewhatdisillusioned or they're feeling
like their pathways are notaccessible, they're not
(35:27):
affordable.
We have a very deliberate modelof how do you continue to reach
and access those individuals sothey can be activated into those
pathways, because if there wereever a time that they need it,
now more than ever, we don'twant any of these individuals
feeling like they're stranded.
We don't want any of'emself-selecting out of education
because they think it's notaccessible, affordable.
(35:50):
And so we're continuing to bevery deliberate about increasing
our reach and support for theseindividuals wherever they are
geographically.
Whatever economic circumstancethey find'em themselves in, and
I'll just give you a taste ofthat, is that we are
dramatically improving therepresentation from students of
color and from low incomebackgrounds.
That's a very deliberate efforton our part, so you can have
(36:11):
more equitable.
Access.
And that combined with thepersonalization of learning
means that the real equityhappens.
It's not just enrollment, it'sactually attainment and, and
economic and social mobilityoutcomes.
that work is that continues todefine the pursuit of the
mission that these governorsfirst founded.
That education helps peoplechange their lives
Eloy (36:32):
Well, I think that equity note is a great note to end on
Scott.
Thanks for joining me.
Really appreciate the work thatyou're leading and really
appreciate you spending sometime with me here on the rant.
Scott (36:44):
It is been a pleasure.
Eloy (36:45):
Well, you've been listening to my conversation
with Scott Pulsifer of WesternGovernor's University.
Thanks everyone for joining mehere on the rant.
If you enjoyed this conversationwith Scott, please hit the like
button.
Let us know what you thoughtabout the interview and what you
think about skills, skills-basedhiring and competency-based
education.
And to hear more episodes,subscribe to this YouTube
(37:06):
channel and continue to followus on your favorite podcast
platform.
Thanks for joining us,everybody, and we'll see you
soon.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.