Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hi, this is Eloy
Ortiz-Oakley, and welcome back
to the Rant Podcast, the podcastwhere we pull back the curtain
and break down the people, thepolicies and the politics of our
higher education system.
In this episode, we dive intothe changes in the edtech
marketplace that we might see orexpect as a result of the new
(00:30):
administration.
This episode is part of aseries of interviews on
navigating the Trumpadministration over the next few
years.
Joining me to talk about theedtech marketplace and some
thoughts about the Biden andTrump administration is Phil
Hill.
Phil is the publisher of the OnEdTech newsletter and he writes
(00:52):
extensively on higher educationpolicy.
Phil is making his secondappearance here on the Rant
podcast and we're happy to havehim back.
So with that backdrop, pleaseenjoy my conversation with Phil
Hill.
Phil, welcome back to the RantPodcast.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, thanks a lot.
It's always good to be herewith you, Eloy, and of course
I'll be looking to see if we'regoing to tweak each other about
Calbright College this time.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Well, maybe we will
get into Calbright, but no,
there's a lot of other thingsgoing on and I appreciate you
taking the time.
I know it's been a crazy startto the year for all of us, so I
know you've got a lot going onin your world.
So thanks for taking the timeto be back.
You're now a two-time inviteeof the Rant podcast, so it's
great to have you back.
So, phil, let's start with theedtech marketplace and just get
(01:42):
your thoughts on where we're attoday.
As we begin this year, a lot ofus are already turning our
attention to getting ready forour annual pilgrimage to San
Diego for the ASU GSV Summit,and I imagine I'll see you there
as well.
What stands out to you aboutthe edtech marketplace today?
Speaker 2 (02:05):
anything jump out at
you, anything that you're paying
attention to these days well, Ido look forward to seeing you
in san diego as we listen to thewords of wisdom from john
mackinrow actually, I'm lookingforward to that of being
presented.
What stands out to me about theedtech marketplace right now?
Back in last year I had noticedthat there's been several years
(02:27):
two years roughly a very toughfinancial climate, particularly
in terms of investment andcompany viability, and we've
definitely seen a lot of thatimpact.
And you know, I think about the2u bankruptcy.
I've recently written aboutAnthology not going bankrupt but
restructuring debt.
Coursera, you know, chegg hashad a huge drop in valuations
(02:53):
and at the same time, highereducation is having difficult
financial times.
So it's been a really toughmarket to be in.
One thing I noticed last year isthere seemed to be I wouldn't
say a revival of the ed techmarket, but it's almost a
plateauing like things aregetting worse and there are
actually signs here or therethat the market might be
(03:14):
improving, more money availablefor innovation.
So I had already noticed thatlast year.
This year you have to factor itin with the change in
administration and there's a lot.
(03:50):
We don't know about the newTrump administration and we'll
talk about that later, but Ithink there's going to be a lot
less innovation.
So, all in all, the biggestthing I would say about the
market is it seems like we're ina turning point and the market
might feel a lot healthier interms of companies serving their
role not just servinguniversities and colleges, but
also innovating and investingand making improvements.
So I don't want to be Pollyanna, but I think things are looking
better than they have been inthe past.
(04:11):
I guess the other one that youcan't ignore is generative AI,
and here we are over two yearsinto the ramp up in interest
since the release of ChatGPT 3.5.
And I will say think about this.
One year ago, what was one ofthe biggest news at the
conference?
It was the LA Unified SchoolDistrict and Eddie and their AI
(04:34):
tutor for all.
Well, that's just completelycollapsed.
The CEOs get in charge.
The whole thing fell apart.
So there was negative, negativeside effect.
But there's so much going on ingenerative AI that impacts the
whole market and, I am sure,probably the majority of people
(04:55):
attending this year.
What they're going to belooking for is how is generative
AI feeding into the market?
Is this giving us newcapabilities or what's happening
?
So I'd say those are the twobiggest things that stand out to
me financial and generative AI,and the things that I'll be
looking for at the conference.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Yeah, no, I would
agree.
I'm sure there's going to be alot of buzz, particularly on the
backside of the drama aroundDeepSeek and the collapse of the
notion about how much moneyneeds to be poured in to train
these large language models.
So it'll be interesting to seeif people think that that's just
(05:35):
lowered the cost of developingtheir AI solutions.
You know how are they going torethink this.
So it will definitely be, I'msure, a topic of discussion in
San Diego.
Now you mentioned that you seethings looking up and I would
agree with you.
I mean, we're still not in thatplace.
We were five, six, seven yearsago where, basically, money was
(05:58):
free.
So that was a lot of investment, crazy investment.
Who are some of the playersthat you think are in some of
the best position to lead someof the technology and innovation
discussions in educationtechnology?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Well, right now, one
thing I would notice if you
compare this to the market fiveyears ago, as you did back then,
there was much more of astartup market.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
The venture capital
coming in, new ideas, new
companies.
Let's try this out.
We mentioned the or at least Idid the eddie ai tutor for all,
a ccp, a unified school districtsorry, right, this year.
I'd say that things are lookingup, but it's more established
companies.
So it basically, I would say,established ed tech companies
(06:47):
that have healthy balance sheets, so a company who already has
demonstrated value to the market.
They have relationships withcolleges and universities, but
they also have a healthy balancesheet to be able to invest in
new capabilities.
Those are the ones that I wouldargue are best positioned to
(07:07):
benefit from this.
You know, I'll certainly begoing to the AI show ahead of
time and trying to test thatthesis.
Are there pure startups that weneed to pay more attention to?
It's just, I haven't seen ityet, but my expectation is
whether it's teaching andlearning, certainly the LMS
vendors that we cover a lot, buteven I mean and I keep
(07:29):
mentioning higher ed, but evenK-12, power school.
They have a lot of money behindthem, but they now have more
debt with private equity buyout.
They've had a prettyinteresting approach on their AI
usage to sort of democratizedata usage.
I would like to see do theyhave something behind that?
Can they really demonstrate iton their AI usage to sort of
(07:50):
democratize data usage?
I'd like to see.
Do they have something behindthat?
Can they really demonstrate it?
They're positioned to do it,but are they going to?
And my writing partner, partnerin crime, Glenda Morgan she's
been pushing lately the wholestudent success area that there
is a demand that we increase thecapabilities of student success
and that's not the tools of thepast, like there have been a
lot of student successinitiatives but we need to be
(08:12):
honest that they haven't movedthe needle.
Now they need to move theneedle.
So there's a ripe area thatgets much more into the
counseling support, not justyour academic coursework.
I think those companies arepositioned to do well, but it's
established companies.
To put it another way, I don'tthink it's startups.
It's just not environment to dostartup type of innovation in
(08:35):
any meaningful way.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
I would agree with
you.
I would imagine I'll be hearinga lot less pitches from brand
new startups when I'm in SanDiego this time around, but
we'll see.
So let's turn our attention tothe previous and the new
administration.
Let's wrap a bow on the lastadministration, since we're
still feeling some of theeffects from everything that was
(09:00):
going on there, everything fromstudent loan forgiveness to the
rollout of the simplified FAFSA, to all the consternation over
the Dear Colleague letter, andso, as we wrap up the Department
of Ed under the Bidenadministration, I know you've
talked a lot about therulemaking process.
(09:24):
You've been writing a lot aboutit.
You've been writing about thechanges you saw happening in the
Biden term at the department intheir rulemaking strategy, the
way that they reach out, wherethey get who influences that
process, and I'm sure we'll betalking about that a little in a
different with the incomingsecretary and her team.
(09:45):
You know who is influencing theDepartment of Education.
Tell us about some of theconcerns you've raised about the
influence over the rulemakingprocess and how do you think
that should play out differentlygoing forward?
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Well, my central
thesis and, to be quite honest,
the reason I even jumped intothis area because I didn't used
to cover this part of our highereducation system until two and
a half years ago was I saw theBiden administration just really
change, put on steroids thepolitical influence on the
rulemaking, rulemaking.
(10:20):
And once you dug under thecovers you saw that it was
really, you know, a network,what we call the Arnold Ventures
Funded Coalition.
Essentially, there's a group ofnonprofits, foundations, who
really coordinate, work together, reinforce each other, and they
had become almost the de factoinput on almost all Department
(10:41):
of Education initiatives, asyou've referenced.
It's not like Bidenadministration is the only one
with outside influence.
It's just the way they did it.
And so, in particular, theprocess, any bit of criticism or
pushback during rulemaking,they interpreted it as oh,
you're a bad actor or you justwant to avoid regulation
(11:04):
altogether.
There was no attempt to treatfeedback as hey, let's work
together to get this right, makesure we meet joint objectives.
That really has been my biggestcriticism of the Biden
administration is not listeningto people, and one thing I wrote
in December is I said, oh, mygoodness, they dropped three
(11:26):
rulemaking efforts that theysaid they were going to do.
And not only did they drop them, they said the reason we did it
is because public commentsconvinced us we were doing it
the wrong way.
That was mind-blowing to me,that just went 180 degrees from
what I'd been watching them dofor two and a half years.
I felt like they set me up tobe wrong, because I was
(11:48):
absolutely wrong.
I took the very generousinterpretation of a road to
Damascus They've seen the lightand on their way out they wanted
to acknowledge hey, this stuff,we're listening to you.
I think now it was much morecalculated that the department
pulled back on those regulationssimply so that they could push
(12:08):
other things over the line thatthey wanted to do.
So I appreciated the efforts inDecember to acknowledge where
public comments really did havea valid argument, but I was
wrong when I described why thatis.
So let's look at this as atransition.
What am I looking for movingforward?
Well, first of all, we're inthe chaos period.
(12:31):
I mean, you and I are recordingthis, the end of.
January.
It's going to get published amonth later.
Oh my goodness, what's going tohappen in the intervening four
weeks?
We don't know.
What I hope happens is thatexact issue that I just
described.
It gets reversed.
What I believe we need to do isget to a process where, when we
(12:52):
do rulemaking, the community,the colleges and universities
have to live with theseregulations.
We at least listen to them sothey can say, hey, here's the
impact of what you're proposingand here's what we think you
know, here's an alternative idea.
There's, of course, going to besome where people want to avoid
regulation, but listen andfigure out what to learn from
(13:15):
them.
So my biggest desire is that wehave a more interactive
rulemaking process.
Two notes on that.
One is the fact of I think itwould be great if we went back
to in-person rulemaking process.
Two notes on that.
One is the fact of I think itwould be great if we went back
to in-person rulemaking.
Get rid of Zoom, because in thepast it wasn't perfect, but
when people did negotiatedrulemaking they met in the
(13:37):
hallway in between sessions.
They talked to each other andcame up with ideas.
The virtual rulemaking, I think, makes the polarization a much
bigger problem.
So if I had a specificrecommendation, I would say go
to in-person rulemaking.
I don't know that that'llhappen.
The other thing and I know thisis a whole can of worms, but
(14:01):
yes, it's the Trumpadministration.
Yes, linda McMahon, if she getsconfirmed, she's been in DC,
she's been within the cabinetand so she's somewhat of a known
entity and a fairly solidmanager, et cetera, et cetera.
However, we also haven'tacknowledged the tone of the
Trump administration.
Trump 2.0 is very different fromTrump 1.1.
(14:23):
, depending on your politicalpersuasion.
Well, it's really the sameobservation.
In Trump 1.0, there was a lotof big talk, but then, when you
looked at the actual running ofthe agencies, there was a lot of
old school business as usual.
Let's be cautious.
Some know, some people wouldargue it was Trump getting
(14:45):
captured by the old Republican,you know class.
Other people would say, well,that was welcome.
Whatever the case is, this time, at least in areas like
immigration and you know otherDEI he's coming out with guns.
Blazing might not be the bestterm, but shock and awe in the
regulatory approach.
(15:06):
So what I'm calling out is,while we knew Linda McMahon in
the 2010s and her role in DC,there's a possibility the
Department of Ed is going to bea lot more aggressive moving
forward.
But then again, for the stuffthat I write about teaching and
learning ed tech, those things Idon't know if it's on their
(15:29):
radar, so I could easily see itactually being a pretty quiet
period, at least for the firstyear or two.
when it comes to onlineeducation, ed tech and stuff
like that, it's guesswork, but Ijust wanted to call out we have
to be careful about takingTrump 1.0 to predict Trump 2.0.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Yeah, no, I would
agree with that assessment.
I think there's going to be alot more activity over the next
hundred days or so.
We'll see what sticks, we'llsee how everybody reacts.
The first 31 days have beensort of an indicator of how this
is going to go.
But let me just sort of circleback with some of the comments
(16:11):
you made and I think there'scertainly where we agree
wholeheartedly.
I agree with you is this notionabout the rulemaking process
needs to sort of go back to thein-person approach, the
colleague approach.
And having sort of witnessedthis in my roles previous roles,
(16:32):
working at the end with theObama team onto the Trump team
under Secretary DeVos, into theBiden team, and now as we
transition, it has gotten moreand more polarized.
There is absolutely no doubtabout that and I think we can
point fingers at everybodyinvolved.
(16:53):
I do think, however, that thenotion that there is one
organization having much moreinfluence than others, I think
it's a little bit overstated,and I'm not saying that there's
not that influence there,absolutely.
I've also seen the influence inmy past from AEI and we can
(17:15):
certainly argue that theHeritage Foundation is
influencing the current climatein the reshaping of the
Department of Ed.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
And don't forget the
new player, by the way the
America First Initiative.
The America First Initiativeand several other Department of
Ed nominees came out of.
They're sort of the new player.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
That's right, and so
I think my hope is that we can
find a middle ground again,because I do think it's swung
way too far.
A middle ground again, becauseI do think it's swung way too
far.
Everything is seen through thelens of what are they trying to
pull past me?
What are they trying to do?
Whose agenda is this?
And that's not a healthy way tomake policy going forward So-.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Well, let me pull you
on the spot.
You've got more insideknowledge than I do.
I had said let's make it inperson.
Is there anything else thatmight happen that could improve
the polar or get away frompolarization and actually debate
effective policy from your?
Speaker 1 (18:15):
perspective.
But people want to find amiddle ground and that's
difficult to do right now.
It's a difficult environment todo that.
I mean you've seen that alreadyin the rhetoric that's coming
out.
I think the effort thatMargaret Spellings has launched
(18:35):
through the Bipartisan PolicyCenter to create this commission
on the American workforce andobviously I'm biased, I'm on the
American workforce andobviously I'm biased, I'm on the
commission but the whole goalthere is to bring people from
both sides of these policyarguments together to come up
with some recommendations forCongress.
(18:56):
And at the end of the day, thisis about what is going to be
Congress's role, because I thinkwhat's gotten lost over the
last couple of administrationsis the role of Congress and the
fact that they've been silentputs all the attention on the
administration when theattention should be on Congress
(19:18):
and their role in policymaking.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
Well, when you say,
attention, that's sort of
self-generated.
Congress doesn't pass laws, soone argument is, the executive
branch jumps in and says, well,we'll do it through regulations,
I mean, I would argue I'd putit a little bit stronger
Congress has been negligent andthat's a huge part of the
problem.
Now, that's something I thinkbeyond our scope to be able to
(19:43):
fix, but I think that's a hugepart of what problem?
Now, that's something I thinkbeyond our scope to be able to
fix, but I think that's a hugepart of what we're dealing with.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
It is a huge part of
what we're dealing with, so
we'll see.
But yeah, to your point, I mean, I think the answer is people
in leadership need to work hardto find that middle ground and
try to present solutions to theadministration, to Congress,
that allow us to actually moveforward.
Because if the opposite happens, then, yes, all those
(20:12):
organizations that we've talkedabout, from Arnold Ventures, new
America, cap, aei, everybody inthere, america First, it just
is going to become the foodfight that it's been for a while
.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
And let me hopefully
I don't feel like I'm hijacking
here, but I'm going to jump ontothis there are a couple areas
that I don't necessarily see itas moving to the middle as there
are.
There are common goals.
One of it is accountability,holding schools more accountable
for the programs they run andtheir student outcomes, if you
(20:48):
will and I see that both fromconservative and liberal circles
, which that gets to a wholeother side there's more than two
sides to this, but I think it'sa common goal.
So another way to say this isthere is a real opportunity to
make progress and valuablecontributions on accountability
(21:10):
moving forward, because clearlythe New Americas and the people
I've written about quite a bitthey push on school
accountability.
That's where a lot of theseregulations came down to, but so
does AEI.
Aei has been writing a lotabout accountability.
I've worked with several collegepresidents.
It's almost like everybody noteverybody the majority of people
(21:32):
agree that we need to do moreon accountability.
So here's an area where you cansay people share very similar
goals and so that's where thechance is is to craft something
that feels more bipartisan.
So it's like choosing the areaswhere you already know you
(21:53):
share common goals, as opposedto attacking the areas where you
don't.
Not suggesting that's going tohappen, but if I were president,
that's what it would be.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
I agree.
I mean the issue, whether youconsider that moving to the
center or mean the issue,whether you consider that moving
to the center or not.
The issue is there is a lot ofcommon ground Anything involving
creating greater value for thelearner, ensuring that they have
an opportunity for economicmobility, giving confidence back
to the public about theinstitutions that are supposed
(22:22):
to be preparing them to succeed.
I mean there is a lot of fearin the workforce about what's
going to happen to them.
You know, with AI, with thechanging nature of the workforce
, with the challenges of gettingaccess to a good post-secondary
experience, the cost of thatpost-secondary experience,
(22:42):
post-secondary experience, thecost of that post-secondary
experience all those I think areripe for both sides of the
aisle to look at and try tofigure out a solution or at
least build a system that putsthose learners at the center.
And I think that is certainly aplace that I know Margaret
Spelling is hoping that wetackle, hoping that the space
(23:05):
that the administration iswilling to hear out and think
about ways that we can do that,because at the end of the day,
this is a national securityissue as well.
We need an educated workforce.
We need an opportunity tocontinue to improve the ability
of our economy to thrive.
(23:26):
So that's what I'm hoping for.
At the end of the day, andsomewhere in the food fight
that's taking place, hopefullywe can find that common ground
and actually do something thatmatters to people.
Otherwise, this thing, thependulum, is just going to swing
one more time in three years.
This thing, the pendulum isgoing to swing one more time in
three years because the Americanpublic is really tired, in my
(23:47):
view, of the back and forthnature of politics these days
and they're looking forsomething that actually helps
them do well in this economy.
Whether you're talking aboutthe price of eggs, or you're
talking about the price ofeducation, price of living in
states like mine, I mean, it'sreally handicapping.
You know, I have four kids.
(24:07):
They're all wondering howthey're going to make it.
That's something that we reallyneed to change, and I think
higher education has a role inthat.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Yep, no, I definitely
agree.
And I would also say collegeand university administrators.
You know about those people,but I mean, think of the
whiplash they go through, whatthey're reacting to and what
they're trying to manage to theother side.
So I realize, just because youand I want it doesn't mean it's
going to happen.
But I will tell you that's whatI'm going to be watching for is
(24:37):
will the regulatory stance ofthe new administration be open
to move to the center?
At the very least take input sothat any regulations have some
feedback from the community.
That's one of the biggestthings I'll be watching for this
year.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
So we've talked about
the incoming secretary a little
bit.
As you mentioned, she's nostranger to the DC environment.
She was the administrator forSBA in the previous Trump
administration.
You know the Department ofEducation can be a bit
unwielding.
There is a lot going on there.
(25:16):
There has been a lot of, as yousaid, pendulum swings from
Obama to, or from Secretary Kingto Secretary DeVos, to
Secretary Cardona and now towhat we'll see after
confirmation.
If it's Secretary McMahon, whatare you looking for to give you
any signals in the first 100days or so of the Department of
(25:41):
Education, because there's beensome folks already taking their
seats over there, some names weknow that were helped out in the
previous transition, some namesthat have been around for a
little while.
What are you looking for togive you a signal of where we're
going?
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Well, I guess three
things I would say.
One is what do they do withJames Quall's position?
Because and I might have thedetails wrong here, but in the
previous Trump administrationthey didn't directly fill that
same role focusing just onpost-secondary education, which
sent a signal of the focuswasn't on colleges and
(26:17):
universities.
So will they appoint somebodyinto that position this time?
That's one of the signals I'mlooking for Expansion into
workforce on higher education,outside of the political hot
potatoes of DEI, anti-semitism,immigration, which those get out
(26:41):
.
Those are very important, butit's outside of my scope.
I'm saying, like, with actualed tech, online education,
enrollment, health ofinstitutions, will they even
appoint somebody?
So that's one signal.
The other one is we've alreadygone past the recording time 10
days of the shock and awe of thenew Trump administration, but
(27:04):
none of the things that you know, what everybody knows.
Day one, I do this.
We're not seeing any movementon the regulation and the
efforts that get around thetopics of expanding access
through online education.
You know those types of topics.
So I think a lot of people hadbeen wondering.
(27:25):
Well, some of the Bidenadministration efforts just get
struck down right away and wehaven't seen it yet.
But one of the things I'll bewatching is if that happened by
ASU GSV because of appointeesgetting confirmed with people in
place, does it come out as sortof like a second level effort?
And so I'll be watching that asa signal.
(27:49):
And then this one might be alittle bit soon.
It's not just going in andexecutive orders or whatever to
take down previous rules.
What will they do with ongoingregulatory efforts in their own
rulemaking?
Well, there'll be.
You know what would be thefirst effort that they put
forward for new rulemaking fromthe Department of Ed, for new
(28:13):
rulemaking from the Departmentof Ed.
So I at least right now.
Those are probably the threethings signals that I'm going to
be looking at.
That I think within the firstfour or five months of the
administration, will probablytell us what's going to happen.
I guess I should take one otherpoint.
That's the obvious one.
(28:33):
No-transcript, I might havebeen wrong.
(28:57):
If I see actual efforts to putthat in place, personally I'll
be very disappointed, but thatwill tell me a lot.
And the get rid of theDepartment of Education.
It's not monolithic.
The question is, are they goingto come in and say let's take
this role and move it to theDepartment of, you know, labor?
Are they going to makerealistic implementation to
(29:22):
slowly reduce the size of theDepartment of Education, or will
it remain in the politicalworld of get rid of it?
You know, which I considerbluster.
So is it actually going to leadto real incremental
modifications or is it going toremain in the political blustery
(29:42):
world?
So I guess I gave you fivesignals I'm going to be looking
for.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
I think those are all
good signals working backwards.
I think you know you're right.
This whole issue of theDepartment of Education, I think
you know you're right thiswhole issue of the Department of
Education.
You know, in my lastconversation with James Quall on
the podcast, he pointed outsomething that will clearly come
up, which is, in his experience, no chair of a committee in
Congress is going to be willingto give up their chairmanship
(30:39):
no-transcript.
There is a lot of discussionabout WIOA in Congress right now
and if they're going to go downthis road, then the department
is going to have to engage inwhat is possible.
I do think, as you said,there's going to be a serious
conversation about what moves tolabor.
(31:01):
I think there's probably somethings that should, or my brief
time in the department to seehow the department and labor
straddle some of the issuesregarding vocational education,
occupational education, some ofthe WIOA issues.
(31:23):
So I think some of that lookwith all the bluster, makes
sense to look at getting rid ofthe Department of Education.
I think one.
I don't see it happening, but ifit did, it would be a huge
bunch of quicksand for theadministration.
They would quickly findthemselves stuck in the mud on a
lot of these issues that mattera lot to people.
(31:46):
I mean, look, hell, matters topeople.
We owe matters to people on theground in states and I don't
see how they get around that.
You spend a lot of time givingadvice to higher education
leaders, whether through thewritings on EdTech Newsletter or
through your own privatepractice.
What advice do you have forhigher education leaders who are
(32:10):
trying to figure out how theylead over the next few years?
What's your advice to them?
Speaker 2 (32:17):
Well, one thing I
would say is we're in a set of
existential issues.
We're not in the same world.
You could argue we were facingthe same issues five years ago,
but so many college leaders wereplaying around with whether
there are real structuralchanges.
What I see happening now isschools saying I can't pretend
(32:40):
any longer and it's mostly dueto financial and student
outcomes those two issues andsaying we've got to make real,
fundamental structural changes.
I will get pushback because youcan't make these changes
without it, but the biggestadvice I would give to people is
say no, you need to fullycommit to structural change at
(33:04):
80, 90% of the colleges anduniversities to set yourself up
for the future and for the newmodern learner, which is not the
same the system was designedfor, and you need to commit to
it.
Take the slings and for the newmodern learner, which is not
the same the system was designedfor, and you need to commit to
it.
Take the slings and arrows andstick with it.
And so don't dabble in online,but also don't pretend like once
(33:25):
you do online, you're going tomake revenue two years later and
it's just going to be asolution on financial.
Make a long-term commitment.
Use it as a way to reach newstudents.
Understand they have differentneeds in their lifestyle and
you've got to commit to it tomake a five-year change effort
around this.
So I guess it's commit to realchange and commit to the fact
(33:49):
that we're talking three tofive-year initiatives, not just
let's make a couple of cuts hereand there and then see if we
hope that things improve.
I would say there's a need forstructural change and if it's
not now, it's never it's.
We're in that area.
So that's not an easy advice togive to them, because you're
(34:09):
really saying let's think aboutit.
You're saying to a lot ofpresidents all right, you need
to commit to a change that couldcause you to lose your job
because the board doesn't wantto take the heat, but that's
what's needed right now.
So, for the good of the industry, you need to go for it and
don't just make changes aroundthe margin.
At this point and I guess thesecond piece closer to home for
(34:32):
what I deal with ed tech andonline education so much is
driven by increasing access tonontraditional students.
Well, you need to fully do that.
You've got to figure out whatsupports these working adults,
these students with families,what they need, and rethink all
(34:52):
of your support around onlineeducation.
You can't just view it as arevenue source.
It's an investment that you'regetting into.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
I agree, and it'll be
an interesting test for public
systems, for the nonprofitsector, how they respond.
And that's what leadership is.
So, as I usually tell folks, ifyou want to be a college
president, a system head, thisis the moment in time when you
(35:22):
actually have to do something,and so I think the future will
favor those institutions, thoseleaders that actually move their
institutions and position theirinstitutions in ways that will
allow them to thrive over thenext couple of years.
And it's going to have toinvolve how to increase your
(35:42):
footprint, how to reach learnersthat you don't normally reach,
and how do you change the waythat you interact with those
learners and relate to thoselearners and create value for
those learners.
So we'll see, we'll see howthat goes.
Let me ask you one lastquestion as we begin to wrap up
what's in store for the EdTechnewsletter or any other things
(36:05):
that are coming down the roadfor Phil Hill and associates as
you look forward into the newyear?
Speaker 2 (36:12):
I would say the main
thing we're trying to do.
We've been doing the premiumnewsletter and figuring out how
to get more advice to the rightpeople in a quicker way.
So we're sort of expanding ourinfluence because as a niche
company there's only so manyconsulting clients you can
directly advise.
So it might be a little bitpresumptuous to say I'm trying
(36:34):
to scale the business, but I'mtrying to scale our influence,
and so the biggest thing I wouldsay this year is, now that
we've established the newsletter, the premium newsletter market
analysis how can we take whatwe've learned over the past two
years and make it better.
So we're going to be revisingsort of the pricing structure
(36:54):
and how we give advice toschools that matches what they
need to hear, Because, as we'reboth talking about, now's the
time for change.
So we're trying to figure outhow to take advantage of the
moment right now.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
All right, phil.
Well, listen, I think you arecertainly in an interesting
position, given your backgroundand your focus.
There's going to be a lot goingon over the next couple of
years, so I look forward tocontinuing this conversation
with you and appreciate youbeing on the rant again.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Yeah, it was great
being here, even if you and I
ended up agreeing on so much.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
But I love the
conversations with you.
Well, I'm sure we'll have plentyto talk about going forward and
I just really appreciate yourinsights and appreciate your
role in the marketplace, I meanit's a good thing that we have
people from all sorts ofdifferent perspectives pushing
on these issues, because I thinkthat kind of competition of
ideas is what we need goingforward.
(37:50):
So thanks for doing that.
All right, thank you, all right, everybody.
Well, thanks for joining mehere on the Rant podcast.
You've been listening to myconversation with Phil Hill.
I'll put information aboutwhere to access the On Ed Tech
newsletter in the description ofthe podcast, and please leave
me your comments.
Let me know what you thoughtabout the conversation, and we
(38:13):
will be back to you againshortly.
Please hit subscribe if you'rewatching us on this YouTube
channel and continue to followus on your favorite audio
platforms.
Thanks for joining me,everybody, and we'll see you
again soon, thank you.