July 2, 2024 • 31 mins
What does it take to lead a university through two decades of transformative change? Join us as Paul LeBlanc, the former president of Southern New Hampshire University, unpacks his remarkable 21-year tenure. Recorded at the ASU GSV Summit in San Diego, Paul opens up about his decision to step down, the growth of SNHU under his leadership, and his vision for the future. You'll learn why timing and leaving an institution in a robust position are crucial for any leader considering a transition. Paul's reflections offer invaluable insights for anyone interested in the evolving landscape of higher education.
Ever felt out of place despite the allure of prestige? Paul shares a personal anecdote from 2003 about nearly accepting a prestigious role that turned out to be a poor fit. This story serves as a gateway to a broader conversation about the changing paradigms of leadership. We discuss why authenticity and vulnerability are becoming more essential than traditional markers of authority and expertise. In a world where trust in institutions is waning, connecting on a human level has never been more important. Listen in as we explore new leadership models that resonate with today’s challenges.
The future of learning is here, and AI is at the forefront. We delve into the visionary work of Human Systems, a public benefits company co-founded by Paul, aimed at designing a human-centered learning model for the AI era. We challenge conventional educational assumptions and consider how AI could redefine knowledge work, freeing us to focus on crucial human-centric roles. We also touch on the turbulent transition predicted by economist Carlotta Perez, emphasizing the need for preparation for significant societal shifts. Join us as we envision a future where meaningful human jobs are not just preserved but celebrated.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hi, this is Eloy Ortiz-Oakley, and welcome back
to the Rant, the podcast wherewe pull back the curtain and
break down the people, thepolicies and the politics of our
higher education system.
In this episode I'm back onemore time at the recent ASU GSV
Summit in San Diego.
This time I get to sit downwith a very special guest, a
(00:33):
friend, colleague and somebody Iadmire very much Paul LeBlanc,
former president of Southern NewHampshire University.
Paul recently stepped down as alongtime president of Southern
New Hampshire University, makinghis mark on how he, his team at
Southern New Hampshire, serveworking learners.
He's made Southern NewHampshire a household name
(00:56):
throughout America and so it wasmy pleasure to sit down with
him just ahead of his steppingdown as president of Southern
New Hampshire to talk about histenure at SNHU, how he's
thinking about his next chapterin life, and we talk about the
ASU GSV Summit and what he feelsis in store for learners and
(01:17):
society with now the rolling outof artificial intelligence.
So I had a lot of fun sittingdown with Paul.
I want to thank him personallyfor his leadership throughout
the years.
I know many of you havedifferent opinions about
Southern New HampshireUniversity.
I have my own opinions, but onething we can say for sure is
(01:38):
Paul and the Southern NewHampshire team have really made
their mark in this country whenit comes to serving working
learners, and we all havelearned something from his
leadership.
I also want to take a moment tothank Southern New Hampshire
University for being a sponsorof the Rant and making this
opportunity down with Paul atthe ASU GSV Summit possible.
(02:00):
So with that, I hope you enjoymy conversation with Paul
LeBlanc.
Paul, welcome to the RantPodcast, eli, it's always great
to be here.
Thanks for having me.
Well, you are one of the fewpeople that is now a two-time
Rant Podcast guest.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Oh, I am honored.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
You know it will be like SNL one of these days when
we'll issue the robes.
So you've got a number two onyour robe for now.
I like this Second stripe,that's right.
So it's great to see you.
We're here at ASU GSV thegathering of a sea of people
talking about all sorts ofthings education, technology and
(02:41):
all sorts of interesting thingsAI in particular.
But before we get to what'sgoing on here at San Diego,
let's talk about you.
So you recently announced thatyou're stepping down from
Southern New HampshireUniversity.
You've had an amazing run as aleader there.
I mean, you've built a machine,you've built an organization
(03:01):
that really cares about adultlearners and you've influenced a
lot of us in higher education.
By the way, we should bethinking about adult learners.
So tell us about that decision.
Why now?
And what do you have plannedfor?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
after this.
Well, first of all, thank you,eli.
I think you're being very kindPeople I get to work with who
have built this organizationover time.
It will be 21 years when I stepdown on June 30th.
I'll be handing over the keysto our university provost, lisa
Ryerson, who's an amazing leader, and I think there are a number
of things that weight into thedecision.
So one you know there's never agreat time to leave, but there
(03:39):
are certainly bad times.
You always want to leave onyour terms, on their terms.
You always want to leave onyour terms, on their terms, and
you want to leave when theorganization feels like it's in
a good place.
So SMH is in a very good place.
Our enrollment continues togrow.
Financially we're very robust.
I think we're getting betterand better at the work we do.
We've built a great team and itis not a place that's dependent
(04:00):
on one guy at the top Right, orone woman.
At least it takes place Becauseour culture now is set, and I
was talking about this in apanel earlier today here at GSV,
in which I get called out byentry-level advisors if they
think that I'm somehowsuggesting a violation of our
mission or this is not good forstudents.
(04:20):
And sometimes they're right.
Like, oh, you're right, I hadn'tthought through the
consequences of that.
So I feel like the time wasright.
I'm 66.
I've got some good work that Iwant to do, but it's not five
more chapters, there's threemore chapters.
When do you make that decision?
And we're going to begrandparents for the first time
in June.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Our baby is out here in.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
San Diego.
We'll spend more time out here.
So I just like to think ofconfluence of things.
You know I'm not a person who'sever loved organizations.
I like people.
I like people who have neverloved organizations.
But in my 21 years I havefallen in love with this
university and it's fardifferent from the one that I
found when I came, and we haveabout 20 students now and it was
(05:03):
not an easy one.
It was not an easy decision tomake.
I had laid right over this fora long time, but I also know
that fresh eyes.
There's another period now ofchange that will come to snhu.
Well, we never don't changeright, but snhu has to look a
lot different five years than itdoes today.
And the the question is do Iwant to start setting in motion
(05:26):
a whole bunch of changes andblock out in the middle of that?
That's a bad time to leave.
Right, so this is the righttime.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I completely agree with you.
When I was thinking aboutleaving the California Community
Colleges, I spent six years asChancellor of the system, but
also 20, some odd, 20, some oddyears working in college, 10
years president, and you know Ijust had to stop and think what
value am I bringing to thisconversation?
(05:53):
Now?
I'm further and further removedfrom the experience of today's
learners.
You know new eyes, newperspectives, different ways of
thinking about it, and you knowyou and I have talked about this
before New generations thinkvery differently about how to
solve the problems that you andI have been trying to solve, and
(06:14):
sometimes I agree with it,sometimes I disagree with it,
and then, ultimately, when Iwalk into a room of legislators
and they're all in their 20s and30s, I have to stop and think
okay it's time for me to move on.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Well, I think your point about fresh eyes.
Our old friend from Arkansasonce said to me you know, Paul,
if you have a pile of dirtsitting in your living room and
you walk around it every day,there's going to be a point when
you forget you have a pile ofdirt in your living room until
the company comes over right.
And it's when a new leadercomes in and lisa said no to me.
Hey, why do you do this?
It's like god, I don't know.
(06:50):
We've been doing it for so long.
I forget why we do it this way.
Right, can I change that?
Like you're the boss and Ithink that's going to be really
healthy for us nature right, no,I, I agree.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
And so you've seen a lot of changes over your years,
um at southern new hamps, newHampshire, and all the work that
you've done.
You've witnessed the recentinfluence of AI and, before that
, machine learning.
You're one of the pioneers that, using technology to reach
learners throughout the country.
And so what?
(07:22):
What are the most impactfulevents, as you look back, that
have shaped the way that youthink about higher education?
Speaker 3 (07:30):
We set out to grow our online operation, the work
we did around advising and thisquestion of helping students
feel like there's someone intheir corner, that they matter.
We did a lot of thatinstinctually.
The woman who led it, ameliaManning, who's now our COO,
(07:50):
who's been at my side for 19 ofthose years, was an architect of
that work.
And if you think aboutorganizations, there's sort of
an old axiom that says reallygreat organizations have to be
really good at three things andthen choose one of those threes
to be excellent at.
So the three are operations,product and people.
(08:12):
So Amazon is a great example ofsomeone like we're good at all
three, but we're gonna beamazing at operations.
Prime right next day, same daydelivery.
Apple would be.
We're gonna be good at allthree things, but we'd be great
at product design.
You know, every time I sit on aplane and I open up my PC, some
25 year old looks at me likeokay, grandpa, why are you not
on a Mac?
(08:33):
Because, people love Apple'sproduct design.
If you think about people, theReds, zappos, zappos shoes are
cheaper but the customer serviceis remarkable.
So most of higher ed plans it'sflagged all three but
excellence.
That's going to be aboutproduct.
We'll talk about curriculumuntil the cows come home.
We'll argue why our intro topsych class is better than your
intro to psych class.
Curriculum committees willspend hours and hours laboring
(08:55):
over it.
You know this right.
So we planted our flag on peopleand we said for our students
who have not done well, often inhigher ed, where it hasn't fit
their lives very well, we'regoing to do everything possible
to sort of make things work forindividual students at scale.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So our advising model .
Speaker 3 (09:17):
They're advisors with you through the whole of your
experience.
They have an intimate advisorswith you through the whole of
your experience.
They have an intimaterelationship with you.
It's lonely to be 10 o'clock atnight in your dining room.
Your family's in the other roomwatching TV and laughing at
their favorite show.
So your advisor's checking onyou.
It's a very we have to be goodat academics.
We have product.
We have to be good at people.
(09:38):
So you need transcripts becauseyou have prior credits.
We're going to chase them downfor you.
We're going to pay the $10.
We pay, not you.
You don't get billed for itlater.
Right, we've built that intoour operations.
You have a problem?
You're not going to have towait three, four, five days for
someone to call you back.
We're going to call you backimmediately you say you're
interested in one of ourprograms, we're going to measure
(09:59):
how much time it takes us toget back to you.
We average about three and ahalf minutes.
We aim to get back to you inunder eight.
That's operations and people.
So so that's where I think thatwas a.
We did it, I watched it besuccessful and I finally was
able to articulate itintellectually in the book that
I wrote in 22 broken, and thefirst chapter is all matter
(10:20):
because you can't transform alife of someone who feels like
they don't matter to you rightthought, basic, most existential
question.
So I think that was a reallearning.
I think when we got to scale, Ihad to learn to lead
differently because, and youknow, because you led a massive
system, what two millionstudents about 1.8.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
No, well, that was about 2.1 when I started.
It was about 1.8 when I left,so massive scale lots of
institutions, right.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
So at size and complexity, you no longer can be
everywhere checking oneverything.
Right, and I think I was stilltrying to lead like I had a
smaller institution and Iremember having dinner with my
board some years ago and sayingwe are at that point, we're
about 500 million dollaroperation.
At that point we were about a$500 million operation, so I
came in when we were $50 million.
I'm still leading like I'm thesame organization.
(11:08):
I used to be able to knoweveryone's first name.
That's impossible now right.
And I said to them I need six tonine months to see if I can be
the leader you need me to be,and I'd like to tell you that
I'm not.
Before you figure it out, Ihope I'm going to tell you that
I think I can do it for you.
So that was a real keyinflection point when I had to
delegate trust, understandsystems more than people like
(11:31):
really thinking about what isthe framework in the system.
And then I think about twoyears ago, three years ago, I
had a guy who's really become agreat coach and consultant and
friend, who took me inside andsaid, Pauline, your people
really love working for you andI said, oh, over here,
something's coming.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Right and talked about they feel the sense of
mission.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
They value leadership .
You're so like that, blah, blah, blah.
He said, well, you're reallyfailing your leaders.
And I said what?
And he said you know, when Iasked him questions about why do
you do this, he said, well,paul really likes it this way
well, paul said he wanted to saydid you disagree?
Well, I, don't know if I reallyfully agree, but I trust Paul
to know he's like that's nottraining leaders, you're not
(12:12):
developing leaders, and itreally it was a big.
Honestly, it felt like I waskicked in the guy.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Right.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Because I thought, like you know, I grew up
Catholic so I should have knownbetter.
I think the week before I wassaying to my wife you know,
after all these years I thinkI've got this thing figured out.
And she's like, don't you dothat.
She's not Catholic as well.
You know bad things are goingto happen.
And, sure enough, a week laterhe tells me I'm failing as a
leader, like, oh yeah, so thereare the key inflection points
(12:39):
and you know this, as you movethrough, the playbook that gets
you to a certain level is oftennot the playbook that gets you
to the next level of leadership.
And how do you still keepgrowing?
I think the leaders you and Iknow who we watch struggle is
oftentimes that lack of growth,that lack of adaptability to
understand what's demanded oftheir leadership and sometimes
to understand that it's time toleave.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Right.
Well, I can't tell you how manyleaders I've known over the
years who just don't understandthat last point.
I mean, there has to be a timewhen you just realize that the
institution will be better offif you make more room.
Yeah, because it relies tooheavily on one person or one
(13:21):
person's way of thinking.
A good friend of mine once toldme making changes on a college
campus is like a rubber band.
You stretch that rubber bandand if you're not careful, as
soon as you walk out it justbounces right back.
And so I've always approachedit from the point of view that
some of that rubber band maybounce back, but I'm going to
(13:42):
stretch it so hard that it'llnever go back to the same again.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Yeah, no, it's a really good point.
Knowing when to leave is almostas important as knowing when to
plan to leave.
Leaving is as important asarriving.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Well, to your point, around arriving so many leaders,
up-and-coming leaders, justwant to take whatever job is
available, whatever presidency,whatever role they can get into.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
It's seductive.
There are great jobs.
You've aspired to be a leader.
You want to be president.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
It sounds great, but they don't think about the fit,
or exactly how their personality, their way of thinking is
actually going to work in thatenvironment.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Can I share a quick story on this one?
In 2003, when I was in thesearch for the SNHU search, I
was also in the search at a veryselective New England liberal
arts college.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
We'll go in there and it was so seductive I mean they
had money, they had status.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
I was only even considered because I'd been
president for seven years ofLongborough College and I raised
a lot of money.
So I think I was an attractivecandidate.
And I remember going to thesearch committee and that was
such a big search committee thatthey divided up in group A and
group B and I met with group Aand Eloy, I tell you, I was
hitting them out of the park.
I had them laughing, I had themcrying, they were eating out of
(14:56):
my hand.
I'm thinking I don't know ifI'm going to be the president,
but I'm getting that campusvisit.
I'm going to be one of thethree people they bring to
campus.
Give me a little bit of a break.
I go to the second group, I godown like the Hindenburg.
I'm doing all the same things,but within 10 minutes I'm going
to have to call a fourth.
Like we know you're not hiringme, right?
Can we leave now?
And what I realized was thesecond group were the trustees,
(15:24):
the senior administrators, and Iwas challenging, and the first
group they're the kids.
So they love the challenges.
Like I don't know if you're asgood as you think you are about,
but well, the chair of theboard was pretty sure they were
just as good as they thoughtthey were.
They were smart because I wouldhave been a terrible fit, but I
was seduced by the endowment.
I was seduced by the status.
I was a first-generationimmigrant kid.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Like I could be president here.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Holy cow, when I got to SNHU, I felt like I found
home.
These were my students.
This was me as a kid.
These were working-class kids.
This was a college that washungry to be better.
It wasn't drinking its ownkool-aid, it wanted to change.
So to your point, fit iseverything.
And that's second group ofboard members is tell the story.
People thought they were asleepat.
The was like nothing, exactlywhat I needed to do.
(16:10):
I would have lasted no timewhatsoever mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
As you're now mature and have been around the block a
few times, code for old.
What would you say I?
I mean you've seen theenvironment that leaders are
having to move into across thiscountry.
It's.
The number of issues that youhave to deal with today is just
(16:33):
amazing.
What advice would you give toleaders that are coming into
organizations, institutionsright now, at this moment in
time?
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Yeah, it's so challenging, as you know, and I
think it's because it's afundamental shift in our society
.
There has been a deep and rapiderosion of trust in
institutions, yes, andcommensurate with that has been
a deep eroding trust in theirleaders.
So university presidents usedto command respect by dint of
(17:04):
their title alone.
Maybe not always on their campuswith their faculty, but
certainly broadly.
If you walked into a publicevent, a university president
was respected and we hired forblue chip backgrounds and
storage CVs and for a long timeit was white males and you know,
(17:24):
certain height and gray hairlike mine, et cetera, et cetera.
Now we live in an age thatdoesn't only not trust authority
, it actually questions allexpertise.
So I don't think you can lose.
You know, we live in an agewhen doctor's offices now have
to have signs that say your 20minutes on WebMD does not equal
(17:44):
my 10 years in medical school.
We question everything that news.
That can't be true.
We live in a post-truth age.
So I think leadership todaycan't lead from expertise.
I think it has to lead fromauthenticity.
We didn't demand that.
In quite the same way, we wantto trust leaders, but I actually
think it's like the whole gamenow is do I feel like I connect
(18:07):
with you and do you seemauthentic?
So I think leaders anduniversity presidents today have
to have a kind of willingnesstowards vulnerability.
I think you have to sound likea human being now.
So when you get in front of acongressional panel and you've
been poorly prepared and yougive an academic Too many
lawyers talking to you, Too manylawyers an academic, legal
answer as opposed to a humananswer, because the answer was
(18:29):
simple to the question isanti-Semitism ever acceptable?
The answer is no.
No.
You can do all the caveatslater in a different setting.
But those presidents aremagnificent human beings.
Not one of them is anti-Semite.
I would bet years pay.
But they were poorly coached.
And really what?
we now need to do, I think, islead very differently.
I think we're in a new age ofleadership, action, and I think
(18:51):
that requires a different set ofmoves.
Coming back and declaringsomething doesn't work anymore.
You know, I just ran into PaulFain, who was atime reporter, as
you know, for Chronicle InsideHigh Red and a previous guest in
the rant, just one of myfavorite people in our industry,
and some years ago I could tellthat we were on a roll, like I
(19:14):
was feeling pretty good andcocky.
This is always gets me introuble, right, but I also had a
sense like not everyone'sloving what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
And I kind of had a sense of who I fit into right.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
So I sent an unorthodox invitation to them.
It was 2011.
And I said I'm pretty sure youdon't agree with me on a number
of things and I'm pretty sureyou might be in the camp that
doesn't even like me, and I'mhoping you'd be in the camp that
will have dinner with me.
I just want to hear you out.
And a bunch of them put theirhands up.
(19:44):
Some objected no, no, I likeyou.
But a bunch of them, and Irented a place, a private room
at a restaurant, had them bringthe food in and close the door,
don't bother us.
And for the next three hours Ijust listened and took notes and
they got into me pretty good.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
I didn't agree with a lot of it, sure, but there was
something like you know what wegot to be better on this.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
And you're right, that was kind of a dumb thing I
did and Paul Fane heard me talkabout this and he wrote a story
in the Chronicle.
It was the second most sharedarticle in the Chronicle back
then, wow, and I think it was sobecause people were responding
to something.
It wasn't about the exercise ofpower by your title or your way
you sit in the org chair.
It was about exercising yourrole through human relationship
(20:32):
and a willingness to talk tosomeone who does agree with you.
And I think we need that morethan ever in our country.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
Right, and we have leaders in our system that feel
like they always have to beright.
That's expertise, again right.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
No, it's not about expertise.
What did you say?
You may have been talkingdramatically, but you're
absolutely right.
I remember as a young I was thepresident of the Faculty Senate
at Springfield College when wevoted no confidence in our
president and I had to fight tohave him removed.
I was the bound, I know.
But what I remember was thatthere were multiple moments that
he stood in front of thefaculty, and if he had simply
(21:11):
said but what I remember wasthat there were multiple moments
that he stood in front of thefaculty and if he had simply
said, I think I screwed up, I'msorry, we would have rallied
behind him, right.
And I was going to say when Iscrew up, I'm going to own it,
I'm going to get up in front ofpeople and say I screwed up, and
I think that, more often thannot, just serves us really well
as human beings.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Right?
No, I agree.
In my view, it's a good thing.
You know, learners today havemuch more agency than they ever
have.
Yeah, sometimes it goesoverboard, sometimes there's a
little bit too much privilegethere, but the fact that they
are demanding something inreturn for the time and the
money that they're investing,it's a brand new concept.
(21:50):
We call this in universitiesfor learners, so I think that's
a good thing and I think theleaders that sort of adapt to
that.
Think about how to do that,think about how to really create
value.
Listen to the learner, adapt tomaybe not always what they say,
but their behaviors.
What are they actually doing inthe way that they choose their
(22:14):
courses, in the way that they'rechoosing online versus hybrid
versus on-campus experiences.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Those are the leaders , I think, that are going to
thrive Absolutely, and I thinkthere you have to be willing
with a couple of things thatwork in what you say.
So the one, the most importantone, is how do we get really
focused on students and not ourinstitutions?
Because I think a lot of highered is built for higher ed and
you know people can malignPhoenix University it's heyday
(22:44):
of massive for profit.
What they forget is that earlyPhoenix was actually a pretty
good place and they taught us alot of lessons about the care of
adult learners and workingstudents.
They kind of went sidewaysafter that for a variety of
reasons I think we all know, butearly Phoenix taught us some
things and they get very focusedon students.
I think that's a critical piecefor sure.
And then I think thiswillingness to change your
(23:07):
systems around the students, notask students to change their
lives around you it's just acritical difference in who's
going to be successful today.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Well, as you know, that's been part of Southern New
Hampshire's growth is seeingthose choices and going to the
choice that you feelaccommodates your life better
than the other choice,absolutely.
You are obviously in transition.
What are you going to be doingnow?
I'm sure you're not just goingoff to your cabin.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
No, actually we were here last year, acgsv George
Siemens, who I'm sure you know Ithink one of the world's great
leaders in AI, the field oflearning analytics he was here.
We were both bemoaning what wefelt was a lot of talk about AI,
but not enough talk about thesheer magnitude of the change we
think is going to wash oversociety, right?
(23:56):
So George and I would both saywe're in the camp that thinks
everything is radically changingand it felt more like, well,
yeah, we'll use AI.
And it's like, oh, bigquestions are going to be in
front of you.
So at the end of our chattingand kind of complaining and
comm's, like, oh, big questionsare in front of you.
So at the end of our chattingand kind of complaining and
commiserating, I said, george,this isn't public yet, but I'm
(24:16):
going to be stepping down nextyear and I'm thinking about what
I'd like to do next.
How about you come join me,leave the University of Texas,
the University of SouthAustralia.
You had a dual appointment.
Why don't you leave?
Come join me and let's see ifwe can reinvent learning.
So that's all we're doing.
We've created a public benefitscompany called Human Systems
(24:37):
and it's funded by SNHU.
As an investor.
I know some people there, sothey were generous to help us
give us some funds.
So it's a merry band of sevenfull-time people and about 35
contractors and the thing we'veset out to do is ask the
question what would it look liketo build a human-centered model
of learning for the age of AIthat uses AI with a clean sheet
(24:58):
of paper design?
So no assumptions, nopreconceptions.
So no assumption that we'regoing to be titled for no
assumption that we're going tobe accredited, no assumption
about the roles.
What would that look like?
What is our theory of the case,if you will.
So that's what we're trying tobuild and I think the bigger
question that sort of drivesthis is we don't believe
(25:22):
learning any longer is going tobe so much about epistemology
what you know and how you know.
We think it's going to be aboutontological questions about
what does it mean to be human ina world where we're not the
most powerful knowledge?
entities any longer, and yet itdoesn't start to shift towards
things like wisdom and judgmentand creativity and sense-making
and the kind of deep culturalconsciousness we all walk around
(25:44):
with, which is almostimpossible to capture in the AI.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Judgment and sense-making is not what our
current leadership in thiscountry excel at.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yeah, I know it's funny, because I was saying to
the panel earlier today that Ikind of had that period of time,
like so many of us.
Oh my god, ai is going to upendall of our systems and I
thought, well, which of oursystems is working Like what?
Our?
Speaker 2 (26:05):
politics.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Our you know capitalism right now Environment
sort of politics.
Or you know capitalism rightnow environment.
So maybe a little artificialintelligence could go a long way
.
For the limitations of thehuman intelligence that's not
working very well right now.
So I have a more optimisticview of what I mean.
Look, at.
I'm not.
I'm not gullible.
I know there are a lot of waysAI could go sideways and we
could be ill served, but I dofeel pretty optimistic about
(26:29):
what's possible.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Let me ask you one last question as we begin to
wrap up.
We're here at ASU GSB.
You've been to several summits.
We were here this time lastyear.
The big news was sort of thepublic unveiling to the masses
of chat GPT.
We're here now, a year later.
There are multiple largelanguage models or multiple
(26:55):
opportunities to access AI.
What has surprised you aboutwhat you've seen here, and is
there anything that makes youhopeful about all this
technology?
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Yeah, well, as I said a moment ago, I am generally
optimistic about what's possible.
I don't love what I've heard ornot heard here.
What I've not heard is a wholelot of talk about students,
right, or the ways, the, where,the places of intersection
between humans and these amazing, this amazing technology.
So the way people willsometimes talk well, there's
(27:27):
definitely a human in the loop,which is just a shorthand way of
saying well, we're not going toscrew over everyone.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
We don't really know what that means, but just most.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
And I do think so.
I'm a fan of the work ofCarlotta Perez.
You may know her, she's aneconomist and she really looks
at what happens when paradigmshift in technologies come into
a society.
Typically, they've been aroundfor a while in some fragmented
form, but then a catalytic eventhappens and that catalytic
event was chat GPT at the end ofNovember 2022.
(28:00):
which he says then happens, andthis is where I think we are
going.
Now.
You get an in-between periodwhich goes to sort of third
phase of this four-phase work,and it's pretty bad.
It's the period in which warshappen, civil unrest you know,
the World Economic Forumpredicts that 85 million jobs
will be displaced next year byAI.
Jeez Right.
(28:21):
So buckle up, right, buckle up.
This is not going to be easyfor a while.
Eventually, it sorts itself outand you come out the other end.
so my optimistic view is that alot of knowledge work will, in
fact, go away if you're auniversity today and you're not
asking questions about yourmajors and what people need to
know, won't happen overnight,but it's gonna happen a lot
(28:42):
faster than I think that peoplerealize, and so, if that's true,
my optimistic view is maybewe'll get back to the human jobs
that we actually don't like topay for anymore.
But make all the difference.
Right, and if we did that, wewould flood our K-12 schools
with amazing teachers and socialworkers and counselors and
coaches.
(29:03):
Right, if we did that, we wouldrebuild a mental health care
system that has been decimatedin America.
If we did that, we would buildan affordable compassion system
of geriatric care for an agingsociety.
If we did that, we would goback and rebuild broken inner
cities.
We would fix a criminal justicesystem that dehumanizes people
at every step of the way.
There's no AI that will dothose jobs.
(29:26):
Right.
We have massive need for peopleto do them.
And if I have a job that'smaking all the difference in the
life of another human being andI'm supported and paid well and
treated fairly, which is notwhat we do for all those jobs,
right.
But if I have that and you saidto me, hey, I've got this
alternative knowledge work job,and I'm stealing from Stuart
Russell, the Berkeley computerscientist, who said if they had
(29:46):
told their ancestors thatthere's a future, imagine this
where you go in this box calleda car and you drive up to a big
box called an office buildingand you go inside and you go to
a little glass box called acubicle and you spend a whole
day standing in a lit box calleda computer monitor.
They would say no, thanks, thatsounds like hell.
So what if we can actually moveaway from knowledge jobs and
(30:10):
move back into human jobs thatactually make society thrive and
flourish?
That's my most optimistic hope.
Color pros are like.
That's absolutely possible.
Those changes happen.
But boy, the transition is ugly.
There are winners, there arelosers, there are power
struggles, there are battles,governments fall, so buckle in.
(30:30):
I think it's going to be a hardride for a while, but that's
why we need collectively to ownand shape and bring compassion
and heart to the work Right.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Well, on that hopeful note, Paul, really appreciate
all your leadership throughoutthe years.
Look forward to what you'regoing to do next.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Thank, you Thanks for being on the rant.
You've been a great colleagueand I look forward to continue
to work with you.
Thanks for being on the rant.
You've been a great colleagueand I look forward to continuing
to work with you.
Appreciate it.
Hi, this is Eloy Ortiz-Oakley, and welcome back
to the Rant, the podcast wherewe pull back the curtain and
break down the people, thepolicies and the politics of our
higher education system.
In this episode I'm back onemore time at the recent ASU GSV
Summit in San Diego.
This time I get to sit downwith a very special guest, a
(00:33):
friend, colleague and somebody Iadmire very much Paul LeBlanc,
former president of Southern NewHampshire University.
Paul recently stepped down as alongtime president of Southern
New Hampshire University, makinghis mark on how he, his team at
Southern New Hampshire, serveworking learners.
He's made Southern NewHampshire a household name
(00:56):
throughout America and so it wasmy pleasure to sit down with
him just ahead of his steppingdown as president of Southern
New Hampshire to talk about histenure at SNHU, how he's
thinking about his next chapterin life, and we talk about the
ASU GSV Summit and what he feelsis in store for learners and
(01:17):
society with now the rolling outof artificial intelligence.
So I had a lot of fun sittingdown with Paul.
I want to thank him personallyfor his leadership throughout
the years.
I know many of you havedifferent opinions about
Southern New HampshireUniversity.
I have my own opinions, but onething we can say for sure is
(01:38):
Paul and the Southern NewHampshire team have really made
their mark in this country whenit comes to serving working
learners, and we all havelearned something from his
leadership.
I also want to take a moment tothank Southern New Hampshire
University for being a sponsorof the Rant and making this
opportunity down with Paul atthe ASU GSV Summit possible.
(02:00):
So with that, I hope you enjoymy conversation with Paul
LeBlanc.
Paul, welcome to the RantPodcast, eli, it's always great
to be here.
Thanks for having me.
Well, you are one of the fewpeople that is now a two-time
Rant Podcast guest.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Oh, I am honored.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
You know it will be like SNL one of these days when
we'll issue the robes.
So you've got a number two onyour robe for now.
I like this Second stripe,that's right.
So it's great to see you.
We're here at ASU GSV thegathering of a sea of people
talking about all sorts ofthings education, technology and
(02:41):
all sorts of interesting thingsAI in particular.
But before we get to what'sgoing on here at San Diego,
let's talk about you.
So you recently announced thatyou're stepping down from
Southern New HampshireUniversity.
You've had an amazing run as aleader there.
I mean, you've built a machine,you've built an organization
(03:01):
that really cares about adultlearners and you've influenced a
lot of us in higher education.
By the way, we should bethinking about adult learners.
So tell us about that decision.
Why now?
And what do you have plannedfor?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
after this.
Well, first of all, thank you,eli.
I think you're being very kindPeople I get to work with who
have built this organizationover time.
It will be 21 years when I stepdown on June 30th.
I'll be handing over the keysto our university provost, lisa
Ryerson, who's an amazing leader, and I think there are a number
of things that weight into thedecision.
So one you know there's never agreat time to leave, but there
(03:39):
are certainly bad times.
You always want to leave onyour terms, on their terms.
You always want to leave onyour terms, on their terms, and
you want to leave when theorganization feels like it's in
a good place.
So SMH is in a very good place.
Our enrollment continues togrow.
Financially we're very robust.
I think we're getting betterand better at the work we do.
We've built a great team and itis not a place that's dependent
(04:00):
on one guy at the top Right, orone woman.
At least it takes place Becauseour culture now is set, and I
was talking about this in apanel earlier today here at GSV,
in which I get called out byentry-level advisors if they
think that I'm somehowsuggesting a violation of our
mission or this is not good forstudents.
(04:20):
And sometimes they're right.
Like, oh, you're right, I hadn'tthought through the
consequences of that.
So I feel like the time wasright.
I'm 66.
I've got some good work that Iwant to do, but it's not five
more chapters, there's threemore chapters.
When do you make that decision?
And we're going to begrandparents for the first time
in June.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Our baby is out here in.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
San Diego.
We'll spend more time out here.
So I just like to think ofconfluence of things.
You know I'm not a person who'sever loved organizations.
I like people.
I like people who have neverloved organizations.
But in my 21 years I havefallen in love with this
university and it's fardifferent from the one that I
found when I came, and we haveabout 20 students now and it was
(05:03):
not an easy one.
It was not an easy decision tomake.
I had laid right over this fora long time, but I also know
that fresh eyes.
There's another period now ofchange that will come to snhu.
Well, we never don't changeright, but snhu has to look a
lot different five years than itdoes today.
And the the question is do Iwant to start setting in motion
(05:26):
a whole bunch of changes andblock out in the middle of that?
That's a bad time to leave.
Right, so this is the righttime.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I completely agree with you.
When I was thinking aboutleaving the California Community
Colleges, I spent six years asChancellor of the system, but
also 20, some odd, 20, some oddyears working in college, 10
years president, and you know Ijust had to stop and think what
value am I bringing to thisconversation?
(05:53):
Now?
I'm further and further removedfrom the experience of today's
learners.
You know new eyes, newperspectives, different ways of
thinking about it, and you knowyou and I have talked about this
before New generations thinkvery differently about how to
solve the problems that you andI have been trying to solve, and
(06:14):
sometimes I agree with it,sometimes I disagree with it,
and then, ultimately, when Iwalk into a room of legislators
and they're all in their 20s and30s, I have to stop and think
okay it's time for me to move on.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Well, I think your point about fresh eyes.
Our old friend from Arkansasonce said to me you know, Paul,
if you have a pile of dirtsitting in your living room and
you walk around it every day,there's going to be a point when
you forget you have a pile ofdirt in your living room until
the company comes over right.
And it's when a new leadercomes in and lisa said no to me.
Hey, why do you do this?
It's like god, I don't know.
(06:50):
We've been doing it for so long.
I forget why we do it this way.
Right, can I change that?
Like you're the boss and Ithink that's going to be really
healthy for us nature right, no,I, I agree.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
And so you've seen a lot of changes over your years,
um at southern new hamps, newHampshire, and all the work that
you've done.
You've witnessed the recentinfluence of AI and, before that
, machine learning.
You're one of the pioneers that, using technology to reach
learners throughout the country.
And so what?
(07:22):
What are the most impactfulevents, as you look back, that
have shaped the way that youthink about higher education?
Speaker 3 (07:30):
We set out to grow our online operation, the work
we did around advising and thisquestion of helping students
feel like there's someone intheir corner, that they matter.
We did a lot of thatinstinctually.
The woman who led it, ameliaManning, who's now our COO,
(07:50):
who's been at my side for 19 ofthose years, was an architect of
that work.
And if you think aboutorganizations, there's sort of
an old axiom that says reallygreat organizations have to be
really good at three things andthen choose one of those threes
to be excellent at.
So the three are operations,product and people.
(08:12):
So Amazon is a great example ofsomeone like we're good at all
three, but we're gonna beamazing at operations.
Prime right next day, same daydelivery.
Apple would be.
We're gonna be good at allthree things, but we'd be great
at product design.
You know, every time I sit on aplane and I open up my PC, some
25 year old looks at me likeokay, grandpa, why are you not
on a Mac?
(08:33):
Because, people love Apple'sproduct design.
If you think about people, theReds, zappos, zappos shoes are
cheaper but the customer serviceis remarkable.
So most of higher ed plans it'sflagged all three but
excellence.
That's going to be aboutproduct.
We'll talk about curriculumuntil the cows come home.
We'll argue why our intro topsych class is better than your
intro to psych class.
Curriculum committees willspend hours and hours laboring
(08:55):
over it.
You know this right.
So we planted our flag on peopleand we said for our students
who have not done well, often inhigher ed, where it hasn't fit
their lives very well, we'regoing to do everything possible
to sort of make things work forindividual students at scale.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So our advising model .
Speaker 3 (09:17):
They're advisors with you through the whole of your
experience.
They have an intimate advisorswith you through the whole of
your experience.
They have an intimaterelationship with you.
It's lonely to be 10 o'clock atnight in your dining room.
Your family's in the other roomwatching TV and laughing at
their favorite show.
So your advisor's checking onyou.
It's a very we have to be goodat academics.
We have product.
We have to be good at people.
(09:38):
So you need transcripts becauseyou have prior credits.
We're going to chase them downfor you.
We're going to pay the $10.
We pay, not you.
You don't get billed for itlater.
Right, we've built that intoour operations.
You have a problem?
You're not going to have towait three, four, five days for
someone to call you back.
We're going to call you backimmediately you say you're
interested in one of ourprograms, we're going to measure
(09:59):
how much time it takes us toget back to you.
We average about three and ahalf minutes.
We aim to get back to you inunder eight.
That's operations and people.
So so that's where I think thatwas a.
We did it, I watched it besuccessful and I finally was
able to articulate itintellectually in the book that
I wrote in 22 broken, and thefirst chapter is all matter
(10:20):
because you can't transform alife of someone who feels like
they don't matter to you rightthought, basic, most existential
question.
So I think that was a reallearning.
I think when we got to scale, Ihad to learn to lead
differently because, and youknow, because you led a massive
system, what two millionstudents about 1.8.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
No, well, that was about 2.1 when I started.
It was about 1.8 when I left,so massive scale lots of
institutions, right.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
So at size and complexity, you no longer can be
everywhere checking oneverything.
Right, and I think I was stilltrying to lead like I had a
smaller institution and Iremember having dinner with my
board some years ago and sayingwe are at that point, we're
about 500 million dollaroperation.
At that point we were about a$500 million operation, so I
came in when we were $50 million.
I'm still leading like I'm thesame organization.
(11:08):
I used to be able to knoweveryone's first name.
That's impossible now right.
And I said to them I need six tonine months to see if I can be
the leader you need me to be,and I'd like to tell you that
I'm not.
Before you figure it out, Ihope I'm going to tell you that
I think I can do it for you.
So that was a real keyinflection point when I had to
delegate trust, understandsystems more than people like
(11:31):
really thinking about what isthe framework in the system.
And then I think about twoyears ago, three years ago, I
had a guy who's really become agreat coach and consultant and
friend, who took me inside andsaid, Pauline, your people
really love working for you andI said, oh, over here,
something's coming.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Right and talked about they feel the sense of
mission.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
They value leadership .
You're so like that, blah, blah, blah.
He said, well, you're reallyfailing your leaders.
And I said what?
And he said you know, when Iasked him questions about why do
you do this, he said, well,paul really likes it this way
well, paul said he wanted to saydid you disagree?
Well, I, don't know if I reallyfully agree, but I trust Paul
to know he's like that's nottraining leaders, you're not
(12:12):
developing leaders, and itreally it was a big.
Honestly, it felt like I waskicked in the guy.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Right.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Because I thought, like you know, I grew up
Catholic so I should have knownbetter.
I think the week before I wassaying to my wife you know,
after all these years I thinkI've got this thing figured out.
And she's like, don't you dothat.
She's not Catholic as well.
You know bad things are goingto happen.
And, sure enough, a week laterhe tells me I'm failing as a
leader, like, oh yeah, so thereare the key inflection points
(12:39):
and you know this, as you movethrough, the playbook that gets
you to a certain level is oftennot the playbook that gets you
to the next level of leadership.
And how do you still keepgrowing?
I think the leaders you and Iknow who we watch struggle is
oftentimes that lack of growth,that lack of adaptability to
understand what's demanded oftheir leadership and sometimes
to understand that it's time toleave.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Right.
Well, I can't tell you how manyleaders I've known over the
years who just don't understandthat last point.
I mean, there has to be a timewhen you just realize that the
institution will be better offif you make more room.
Yeah, because it relies tooheavily on one person or one
(13:21):
person's way of thinking.
A good friend of mine once toldme making changes on a college
campus is like a rubber band.
You stretch that rubber bandand if you're not careful, as
soon as you walk out it justbounces right back.
And so I've always approachedit from the point of view that
some of that rubber band maybounce back, but I'm going to
(13:42):
stretch it so hard that it'llnever go back to the same again.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Yeah, no, it's a really good point.
Knowing when to leave is almostas important as knowing when to
plan to leave.
Leaving is as important asarriving.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Well, to your point, around arriving so many leaders,
up-and-coming leaders, justwant to take whatever job is
available, whatever presidency,whatever role they can get into.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
It's seductive.
There are great jobs.
You've aspired to be a leader.
You want to be president.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
It sounds great, but they don't think about the fit,
or exactly how their personality, their way of thinking is
actually going to work in thatenvironment.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Can I share a quick story on this one?
In 2003, when I was in thesearch for the SNHU search, I
was also in the search at a veryselective New England liberal
arts college.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
We'll go in there and it was so seductive I mean they
had money, they had status.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
I was only even considered because I'd been
president for seven years ofLongborough College and I raised
a lot of money.
So I think I was an attractivecandidate.
And I remember going to thesearch committee and that was
such a big search committee thatthey divided up in group A and
group B and I met with group Aand Eloy, I tell you, I was
hitting them out of the park.
I had them laughing, I had themcrying, they were eating out of
(14:56):
my hand.
I'm thinking I don't know ifI'm going to be the president,
but I'm getting that campusvisit.
I'm going to be one of thethree people they bring to
campus.
Give me a little bit of a break.
I go to the second group, I godown like the Hindenburg.
I'm doing all the same things,but within 10 minutes I'm going
to have to call a fourth.
Like we know you're not hiringme, right?
Can we leave now?
And what I realized was thesecond group were the trustees,
(15:24):
the senior administrators, and Iwas challenging, and the first
group they're the kids.
So they love the challenges.
Like I don't know if you're asgood as you think you are about,
but well, the chair of theboard was pretty sure they were
just as good as they thoughtthey were.
They were smart because I wouldhave been a terrible fit, but I
was seduced by the endowment.
I was seduced by the status.
I was a first-generationimmigrant kid.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Like I could be president here.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
Holy cow, when I got to SNHU, I felt like I found
home.
These were my students.
This was me as a kid.
These were working-class kids.
This was a college that washungry to be better.
It wasn't drinking its ownkool-aid, it wanted to change.
So to your point, fit iseverything.
And that's second group ofboard members is tell the story.
People thought they were asleepat.
The was like nothing, exactlywhat I needed to do.
(16:10):
I would have lasted no timewhatsoever mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
As you're now mature and have been around the block a
few times, code for old.
What would you say I?
I mean you've seen theenvironment that leaders are
having to move into across thiscountry.
It's.
The number of issues that youhave to deal with today is just
(16:33):
amazing.
What advice would you give toleaders that are coming into
organizations, institutionsright now, at this moment in
time?
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Yeah, it's so challenging, as you know, and I
think it's because it's afundamental shift in our society
.
There has been a deep and rapiderosion of trust in
institutions, yes, andcommensurate with that has been
a deep eroding trust in theirleaders.
So university presidents usedto command respect by dint of
(17:04):
their title alone.
Maybe not always on their campuswith their faculty, but
certainly broadly.
If you walked into a publicevent, a university president
was respected and we hired forblue chip backgrounds and
storage CVs and for a long timeit was white males and you know,
(17:24):
certain height and gray hairlike mine, et cetera, et cetera.
Now we live in an age thatdoesn't only not trust authority
, it actually questions allexpertise.
So I don't think you can lose.
You know, we live in an agewhen doctor's offices now have
to have signs that say your 20minutes on WebMD does not equal
(17:44):
my 10 years in medical school.
We question everything that news.
That can't be true.
We live in a post-truth age.
So I think leadership todaycan't lead from expertise.
I think it has to lead fromauthenticity.
We didn't demand that.
In quite the same way, we wantto trust leaders, but I actually
think it's like the whole gamenow is do I feel like I connect
(18:07):
with you and do you seemauthentic?
So I think leaders anduniversity presidents today have
to have a kind of willingnesstowards vulnerability.
I think you have to sound likea human being now.
So when you get in front of acongressional panel and you've
been poorly prepared and yougive an academic Too many
lawyers talking to you, Too manylawyers an academic, legal
answer as opposed to a humananswer, because the answer was
(18:29):
simple to the question isanti-Semitism ever acceptable?
The answer is no.
No.
You can do all the caveatslater in a different setting.
But those presidents aremagnificent human beings.
Not one of them is anti-Semite.
I would bet years pay.
But they were poorly coached.
And really what?
we now need to do, I think, islead very differently.
I think we're in a new age ofleadership, action, and I think
(18:51):
that requires a different set ofmoves.
Coming back and declaringsomething doesn't work anymore.
You know, I just ran into PaulFain, who was atime reporter, as
you know, for Chronicle InsideHigh Red and a previous guest in
the rant, just one of myfavorite people in our industry,
and some years ago I could tellthat we were on a roll, like I
(19:14):
was feeling pretty good andcocky.
This is always gets me introuble, right, but I also had a
sense like not everyone'sloving what we're doing.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
And I kind of had a sense of who I fit into right.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
So I sent an unorthodox invitation to them.
It was 2011.
And I said I'm pretty sure youdon't agree with me on a number
of things and I'm pretty sureyou might be in the camp that
doesn't even like me, and I'mhoping you'd be in the camp that
will have dinner with me.
I just want to hear you out.
And a bunch of them put theirhands up.
(19:44):
Some objected no, no, I likeyou.
But a bunch of them, and Irented a place, a private room
at a restaurant, had them bringthe food in and close the door,
don't bother us.
And for the next three hours Ijust listened and took notes and
they got into me pretty good.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
I didn't agree with a lot of it, sure, but there was
something like you know what wegot to be better on this.
Speaker 3 (20:09):
And you're right, that was kind of a dumb thing I
did and Paul Fane heard me talkabout this and he wrote a story
in the Chronicle.
It was the second most sharedarticle in the Chronicle back
then, wow, and I think it was sobecause people were responding
to something.
It wasn't about the exercise ofpower by your title or your way
you sit in the org chair.
It was about exercising yourrole through human relationship
(20:32):
and a willingness to talk tosomeone who does agree with you.
And I think we need that morethan ever in our country.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
Right, and we have leaders in our system that feel
like they always have to beright.
That's expertise, again right.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
No, it's not about expertise.
What did you say?
You may have been talkingdramatically, but you're
absolutely right.
I remember as a young I was thepresident of the Faculty Senate
at Springfield College when wevoted no confidence in our
president and I had to fight tohave him removed.
I was the bound, I know.
But what I remember was thatthere were multiple moments that
he stood in front of thefaculty, and if he had simply
(21:11):
said but what I remember wasthat there were multiple moments
that he stood in front of thefaculty and if he had simply
said, I think I screwed up, I'msorry, we would have rallied
behind him, right.
And I was going to say when Iscrew up, I'm going to own it,
I'm going to get up in front ofpeople and say I screwed up, and
I think that, more often thannot, just serves us really well
as human beings.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Right?
No, I agree.
In my view, it's a good thing.
You know, learners today havemuch more agency than they ever
have.
Yeah, sometimes it goesoverboard, sometimes there's a
little bit too much privilegethere, but the fact that they
are demanding something inreturn for the time and the
money that they're investing,it's a brand new concept.
(21:50):
We call this in universitiesfor learners, so I think that's
a good thing and I think theleaders that sort of adapt to
that.
Think about how to do that,think about how to really create
value.
Listen to the learner, adapt tomaybe not always what they say,
but their behaviors.
What are they actually doing inthe way that they choose their
(22:14):
courses, in the way that they'rechoosing online versus hybrid
versus on-campus experiences.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Those are the leaders , I think, that are going to
thrive Absolutely, and I thinkthere you have to be willing
with a couple of things thatwork in what you say.
So the one, the most importantone, is how do we get really
focused on students and not ourinstitutions?
Because I think a lot of highered is built for higher ed and
you know people can malignPhoenix University it's heyday
(22:44):
of massive for profit.
What they forget is that earlyPhoenix was actually a pretty
good place and they taught us alot of lessons about the care of
adult learners and workingstudents.
They kind of went sidewaysafter that for a variety of
reasons I think we all know, butearly Phoenix taught us some
things and they get very focusedon students.
I think that's a critical piecefor sure.
And then I think thiswillingness to change your
(23:07):
systems around the students, notask students to change their
lives around you it's just acritical difference in who's
going to be successful today.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Well, as you know, that's been part of Southern New
Hampshire's growth is seeingthose choices and going to the
choice that you feelaccommodates your life better
than the other choice,absolutely.
You are obviously in transition.
What are you going to be doingnow?
I'm sure you're not just goingoff to your cabin.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
No, actually we were here last year, acgsv George
Siemens, who I'm sure you know Ithink one of the world's great
leaders in AI, the field oflearning analytics he was here.
We were both bemoaning what wefelt was a lot of talk about AI,
but not enough talk about thesheer magnitude of the change we
think is going to wash oversociety, right?
(23:56):
So George and I would both saywe're in the camp that thinks
everything is radically changingand it felt more like, well,
yeah, we'll use AI.
And it's like, oh, bigquestions are going to be in
front of you.
So at the end of our chattingand kind of complaining and
comm's, like, oh, big questionsare in front of you.
So at the end of our chattingand kind of complaining and
commiserating, I said, george,this isn't public yet, but I'm
(24:16):
going to be stepping down nextyear and I'm thinking about what
I'd like to do next.
How about you come join me,leave the University of Texas,
the University of SouthAustralia.
You had a dual appointment.
Why don't you leave?
Come join me and let's see ifwe can reinvent learning.
So that's all we're doing.
We've created a public benefitscompany called Human Systems
(24:37):
and it's funded by SNHU.
As an investor.
I know some people there, sothey were generous to help us
give us some funds.
So it's a merry band of sevenfull-time people and about 35
contractors and the thing we'veset out to do is ask the
question what would it look liketo build a human-centered model
of learning for the age of AIthat uses AI with a clean sheet
(24:58):
of paper design?
So no assumptions, nopreconceptions.
So no assumption that we'regoing to be titled for no
assumption that we're going tobe accredited, no assumption
about the roles.
What would that look like?
What is our theory of the case,if you will.
So that's what we're trying tobuild and I think the bigger
question that sort of drivesthis is we don't believe
(25:22):
learning any longer is going tobe so much about epistemology
what you know and how you know.
We think it's going to be aboutontological questions about
what does it mean to be human ina world where we're not the
most powerful knowledge?
entities any longer, and yet itdoesn't start to shift towards
things like wisdom and judgmentand creativity and sense-making
and the kind of deep culturalconsciousness we all walk around
(25:44):
with, which is almostimpossible to capture in the AI.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Judgment and sense-making is not what our
current leadership in thiscountry excel at.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yeah, I know it's funny, because I was saying to
the panel earlier today that Ikind of had that period of time,
like so many of us.
Oh my god, ai is going to upendall of our systems and I
thought, well, which of oursystems is working Like what?
Our?
Speaker 2 (26:05):
politics.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
Our you know capitalism right now Environment
sort of politics.
Or you know capitalism rightnow environment.
So maybe a little artificialintelligence could go a long way
.
For the limitations of thehuman intelligence that's not
working very well right now.
So I have a more optimisticview of what I mean.
Look, at.
I'm not.
I'm not gullible.
I know there are a lot of waysAI could go sideways and we
could be ill served, but I dofeel pretty optimistic about
(26:29):
what's possible.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Let me ask you one last question as we begin to
wrap up.
We're here at ASU GSB.
You've been to several summits.
We were here this time lastyear.
The big news was sort of thepublic unveiling to the masses
of chat GPT.
We're here now, a year later.
There are multiple largelanguage models or multiple
(26:55):
opportunities to access AI.
What has surprised you aboutwhat you've seen here, and is
there anything that makes youhopeful about all this
technology?
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Yeah, well, as I said a moment ago, I am generally
optimistic about what's possible.
I don't love what I've heard ornot heard here.
What I've not heard is a wholelot of talk about students,
right, or the ways, the, where,the places of intersection
between humans and these amazing, this amazing technology.
So the way people willsometimes talk well, there's
(27:27):
definitely a human in the loop,which is just a shorthand way of
saying well, we're not going toscrew over everyone.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
We don't really know what that means, but just most.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
And I do think so.
I'm a fan of the work ofCarlotta Perez.
You may know her, she's aneconomist and she really looks
at what happens when paradigmshift in technologies come into
a society.
Typically, they've been aroundfor a while in some fragmented
form, but then a catalytic eventhappens and that catalytic
event was chat GPT at the end ofNovember 2022.
(28:00):
which he says then happens, andthis is where I think we are
going.
Now.
You get an in-between periodwhich goes to sort of third
phase of this four-phase work,and it's pretty bad.
It's the period in which warshappen, civil unrest you know,
the World Economic Forumpredicts that 85 million jobs
will be displaced next year byAI.
Jeez Right.
(28:21):
So buckle up, right, buckle up.
This is not going to be easyfor a while.
Eventually, it sorts itself outand you come out the other end.
so my optimistic view is that alot of knowledge work will, in
fact, go away if you're auniversity today and you're not
asking questions about yourmajors and what people need to
know, won't happen overnight,but it's gonna happen a lot
(28:42):
faster than I think that peoplerealize, and so, if that's true,
my optimistic view is maybewe'll get back to the human jobs
that we actually don't like topay for anymore.
But make all the difference.
Right, and if we did that, wewould flood our K-12 schools
with amazing teachers and socialworkers and counselors and
coaches.
(29:03):
Right, if we did that, we wouldrebuild a mental health care
system that has been decimatedin America.
If we did that, we would buildan affordable compassion system
of geriatric care for an agingsociety.
If we did that, we would goback and rebuild broken inner
cities.
We would fix a criminal justicesystem that dehumanizes people
at every step of the way.
There's no AI that will dothose jobs.
(29:26):
Right.
We have massive need for peopleto do them.
And if I have a job that'smaking all the difference in the
life of another human being andI'm supported and paid well and
treated fairly, which is notwhat we do for all those jobs,
right.
But if I have that and you saidto me, hey, I've got this
alternative knowledge work job,and I'm stealing from Stuart
Russell, the Berkeley computerscientist, who said if they had
(29:46):
told their ancestors thatthere's a future, imagine this
where you go in this box calleda car and you drive up to a big
box called an office buildingand you go inside and you go to
a little glass box called acubicle and you spend a whole
day standing in a lit box calleda computer monitor.
They would say no, thanks, thatsounds like hell.
So what if we can actually moveaway from knowledge jobs and
(30:10):
move back into human jobs thatactually make society thrive and
flourish?
That's my most optimistic hope.
Color pros are like.
That's absolutely possible.
Those changes happen.
But boy, the transition is ugly.
There are winners, there arelosers, there are power
struggles, there are battles,governments fall, so buckle in.
(30:30):
I think it's going to be a hardride for a while, but that's
why we need collectively to ownand shape and bring compassion
and heart to the work Right.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Well, on that hopeful note, Paul, really appreciate
all your leadership throughoutthe years.
Look forward to what you'regoing to do next.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Thank, you Thanks for being on the rant.
You've been a great colleagueand I look forward to continue
to work with you.
Thanks for being on the rant.
You've been a great colleagueand I look forward to continuing
to work with you.
Appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!