The Rant

Serving Working Learners - A Conversation with Scott Pulsipher, President at WGU

October 31, 2023 Eloy Oakley/Scott Pulsipher Season 2 Episode 6
The Rant
Serving Working Learners - A Conversation with Scott Pulsipher, President at WGU
Show Notes Transcript

In this episode, I talk with Scott Pulsipher, president of Western Governors University (WGU). We talk about the history of WGU, the growth of enrollments and the evolution of the teaching and learning model. I discuss with Scott how the WGU team thinks about serving working learners and the importance of their Competency-Based Education model. Scott also describes recent efforts  in Congress to codify CBE and the impact of AI on its model.

Detached audio:

Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz Oakley and welcome back to the ramp, the podcast where we pull back the curtain and break down the people, the policies, and the politics of our higher education system. In this episode, I get to talk to Scott Pulsifer, president and c e o of Western Governors University, W G U. W G U is one of the trailblazing universities built to serve working learners through a competency-based education model. Since its founding in 1997, W G U has grown to serve more than 150,000 learners throughout the country. We will discuss W's roots, its evolution, and how it's harnessing technology to better serve learners of all backgrounds. So Scott, welcome to the rent.

Scott:

Eli, it's great to be with you. Thanks for having me

Eloy:

great to have you and thanks for all the work that you're leading. And you've been leading W G U since around 2016, if I have that right. Throughout that time, you've seen rapid growth of your university, you've seen a lot of changes take hold. You've lived through a pandemic. However, before we get into the W G U story, let's get to know your story. Scott, tell us about your higher education journey and what led you to this leadership position at W G U.

Scott:

As much as I don't like starting with myself, I suppose it's a little bit different than many who found themselves in a position like this. it was a combination of, I suppose, a lot of preparation through other experiences that may have not been within higher education a growing affinity for it, and how education can certainly change the lives of others for the better. But then a little bit of serendipity and, and maybe chance or coincidence at least. And, and that is to say that most of my prior experience prior to WG was within the private sector, particularly within technology and software startups and Amazon. and prior to that, I was in management consulting way back early in my career. But beginning around 2010, I personally started associated with my undergraduate alma Mater, Brigham Young University that's also based here in Utah where I'm now based. And I start having the opportunity to participate on an advisory board, started guest lecturing and part participating in seminar series. And so I started getting connected again with all of those you know, those nostalgic experiences that I had in terms of how education helped shape my future and the prospects I had in my life. And that was quite fun. But what was interesting around that time too, is I was working up in Seattle, Washington and Amazon. The executive recruiter that I started to get to know because he'd been trying to recruit me to other technology firms. It happened to be the case that after I had already chosen to leave Amazon and join another software startup that happened to be headquartered here in Salt Lake City, Utah, and my, I and my family had already made the move that it turned out that w g had actually hired this executive recruiter and the partner who on point. And had had known that I'd taken an opportunity that brought me to Utah and he started simply just, you know, pinging me a little bit, persuading me to meet with Bob Mendenhall, my predecessor, asking me to say, Hey, this may seem different than what you might have anticipated, but it's something that I think you'd be particularly well suited for. It's an organization. Organization. As you know, Eloy, a little bit of wg. It's an organization that is student first and student obsessed, that has a tech first mindset. How does technology enable the disruptions and the innovations that we, that we intend to better serve our students? And certainly three things I think came together somewhat. One is an interest and a passion for how education can be a great catalyst for people to change their lives for the better. Second background that I had in technology and how can technology also shape how we think about the practices and processes within higher education to make it more accessible, more relevant, more affordable, more student-centered, more personalized, all those dimensions was something. And third, it was also an opportunity for me personally to see how the way in which I could lead, could continue to innovate, can reinvent things. Can fundamentally have an impact on the lives of those that I lead here at wgu in developing, advancing the culture of wgu. And so for me personally, it's also had a real opportunity to make a difference in the lives of those with whom I associate. And hopefully they can say that they're better because of their association with me. And so those all came together and here I am somewhat back again to higher education because I didn't come through those academic ranks that you often see. Within the leadership of higher education

Eloy:

well, W G u I think was in an interesting point in time continuing to grow and given its presence online, given the changing use of technology, it probably made sense to look at somebody who had that experience, that user design experience. And I think you brought all that with you. Is there anything from your education experience that you bring with you into this job? Anything that, that struck you as you were a, you know an undergrad or, or working in, in your professional life that That you think is relevant to you, to your situation there at W G U?

Scott:

there's probably a couple things. One that that is all about the, how we think about the quality of an education. And one thing that I think I started recognizing as I was associating with Brigham Young University and. Interesting point there really quickly too, was that I was invited to be an adjunct professor or an adjunct faculty. I guess if you'll, I dunno if I would ever make the mistake again of calling myself a professor. So, but adjunct faculty and adjunct teaching about entrepreneurship and product management in the business school down at the Merit School of Management at B Y U. And one of the interesting things that, that came about is because a lot of the things that I was being exposed to was. Whether or not the things that they were teaching and the things that the students were being required to learn, whether they were actually relevant to the world of work, particularly within the technology sector that I was coming from, is it seemed like there was a disconnect. And so the seminars that we'd give and the lectures would give became incredibly valuable to the students, at least as I saw, because they started seeing how what they needed to learn and what they were learning, how it was actually gonna apply to the opportunities that they were gonna pursue. So there's an element about that that I started recognizing. The other big thing is that much of what I have observed too was that. S you know, the faculty still had more of an a bias towards what is it That there was their field of interest or their field of research that they wanna advance. And there was still seemingly that disconnect between actually putting the students at the center of everything they did. How did they. Think about increasing the probability that they would master the concepts that they were teaching. How did they increase their understanding of how what they learned applied to the opportunities they're gonna pursue? How did they increase their ability to support them with all the disruption that these students may be dealing with at times, like those were all secondary thoughts to'em, and so it was helping me also kind of. You know, recognize that in my own experience with education, that we think that there are many ways by which we can make it more student-centered, that we can make it more relevant to the future, that they're, they're gonna be part of in creating. And so those are elements to it, and certainly as, as I became more directly associated with wg, other factors around affordability and service models and all the co-curricular things that get designed around. What I now more often call the emerging adult experience. Like those start to become an interesting set of issues that I think we're grappling with and you're always trying to figure out how to make it more directly focused on the education as I define it, by the way, is the acquisition of knowledge, skill, and ability, like if that's your primary purpose. How does everything that you do increase the success in delivering that value proposition rather than letting things become purposes or products or services in and of themselves. And so those are some of the things that I, that I was have been drawing from regulated to say. Hey, for us to really deliver the value proposition and help people change their lives for the better, is it centered on their success? Is the primary beneficiary, is it relevant? Is it accessible? And traversable, those things start to become

Eloy:

Yeah, no, I couldn't agree more. That student centeredness is certainly a great recipe for success and. Given that you've now, you're now in your seventh year the board at the, at W G U made the right decision. let's talk more about G U Scott, for those listeners who are not as familiar with the story of W G U as I am, can you tell us a little bit about the university, its history, who you serve, and, and a little bit about your mission?

Scott:

as you mentioned in your intro founded over 25 years ago, 1997, January of 1997 that it was actually the product of a lot of governors of 19 different Western states coming together, governors from both political parties representing of quite a diversity of states across the Western us, like they actually recognized that they all shared one thing around this particular item. All of'em had their public institutions. All of'em invested significantly through their state budgets, but they, what they recognize is that, They did not have all the residents or this, you know, of their respective states participating in those public systems of higher education. They weren't able to access and serve the very diverse population of individuals within their states. And so they were investing in, in a solution or an approach to how do you dramatically expand access to high quality education for all those that aren't participating in it. You've heard this before, Eloy is like, one of the simple references was how do we help those that have some college but no degree? How do we help those individuals actually attain the credentials they need that are a key signal to them advancing in the opportunity? And why are they doing this? Because it's also in their economic interests. It's in their communion, social interests that they have for their respective states. Like the more that they have participated in the opportunity, the more it actually compounds the benefit for everyone. And so. That's what W G U was founded on is the simple purpose of how do you expand access to high quality education so people can change their lives for the better, so they can participate in and contribute to their communities and the societies in which they which they are part of. And so these governors created this institution utilizing two initial things that, that I would highlight. One is, You referenced briefly, which is Governor Roy Roamer out of Colorado was a huge advocate for competency. He would often tell a story about the pilot. You know, he is like, I don't really care where you learn how to pilot a plane. I just need to know whether you're competent to pilot the plane. Right. And so that idea gave anchoring to this competency based approach to education, that it was mastery or proficiency in the subject matter that was more important than the time it took you to develop that mastery. The other dimension came from Governor Levitt in many ways, who certainly in 1996 when the idea began emerging, and then 97 when founded, like this is still the early days of the internet the vast majority of the population didn't have email addresses yet. They didn't necessarily have a l l online, you know, they didn't have access to those things, but he certainly believed, like many did in that time that the internet was gonna dramatically change and democratize things in a. That we had not previously experienced. And so out of that emerged, w g O, how, how do we better serve those that could largely be cap classified as working learners? Individuals who are, have many other demands on their time, full-time jobs. They may have family, they may be older than your traditional college student. They may be in rural populations or military or first generation students. These are those ones that have not historically participated at the same high rates. As individuals may who would be participating that come from more privileged backgrounds or higher incomes, stratta. And so that is still core to our mission. We know the huge value that education is in helping people change their lives. But if it's not accessible, if it's not affordable, if it's not traversable, meaning completable, like, then why are we investing in only this model of public, you know systems of higher education. Like there needs to be space for many more models. So that many more can actually acquire those credentials and the knowledge and skills they need to access the opportunity. And so that's where WG is today and we certainly are very different than than that original idea. And we've added many more elements

Eloy:

So one of the key elements, that's certainly been key to, to the success of W G U is this competency-based education model that you talked about. W G U is a pioneer in C B E as we call it. In fact, you know, when I was chancellor of the California Community Colleges, We use the W G U C B E model as an example of what we were designing for when we created Albright College. So tell us about your C B E model. And you were also recently mentioned in a bipartisan piece of legislation from Senators Mitt Romney and John Hickenlooper that would finally provide some statutory language and authorization for C B E. Tell us a little bit about that effort and why codifying C B E is needed.

Scott:

Yeah, the it's certainly been a privilege to associate with you Eloy and our endeavors in this regard because we know that even as effective as a credit hour may have been, or a seat time may have been in a, in

Eloy:

or

Scott:

measuring and managing or monitoring or not effective. Yeah. Monitoring, learning that's probably. Apropo, the title of your podcast, Steven is like, yeah. Has anyone really investigated the credit hour and how effective? It's certainly I think we have over generations taken certain things as being matter of fact rather than whether they actually work. And so the competency-based model that we have really implemented, WG probably designs around a couple key things and or three things I'll try to highlight. One is, In a competency based approach, you have to work really hard to ensure that the learning outcomes at a unit of a course or a module or a program, meaning the credentials, like you have to know that those learning outcomes are relevant to the skills and competence or the knowledge and. Capability that individuals need in the opportunities that they're pursuing. This is one of the ways by which being very deliberate about designing for what is it that you need to master so that you can be better, better ready for the opportunities you're pursuing. That is one of the core elements of our competency-based design and today, having that level of detail has also allowed us to map it to the skills library in the world of work that are showing up increasingly, job roles, et cetera. The second key consideration is, is that when you design that way, That you actually have criterion reference assessments, which is, well, you have to be really clear about how you're assessing that competency and that that our instructional faculty and all those who have that subject matter expertise around not only instructional design but assessment design and all the psychometrics that go along with it, is like you have to know that if in fact individuals are, are passing these exams or these assessments, if you will, that you know they have high integrity around verified competency. Now the third key part of that comes to how do you redesign the instructional model around that, including the evaluation of, of a student's proficiency or their, their levels of competency. And we've kind of unbundled that faculty model where we've really said, you know, we wanna leverage all the best content out there and make that available to you. We wanna provide more personalized instruction down at a course level so you can have direct access to the expert. More on a one-on-one basis because of the lecture, which are most, what most people experience is just content. It's really about how our individual or how our faculty helping an individual student progress in their own mastery of that content. And the other key piece of that is the mentoring model, which is the mentor who are really helping them connect all the dots across their program to say it's actually the integrative competency that you need to develop across those programs too. Of course we have our evaluation, our evaluator model that says those who are evaluating the proficiency of the students are different from those who designed the curriculum are different from the faculty who teach the curriculum. And so you have a high integrity model around that. The last thing, if I can Eloy before I go too long, simply say is that competency base is not something we invented. I think you're right, which is we see ourselves as pioneers in it because of our design and scaling of the model that we've had. Competency basis existed for a long time, and I often say is like most students have probably experienced it because there are licensure programs in medicine, bar exams and C P A exams, you know, you name it. Like there's plenty of exams out there that individuals have to take and pass to effectively be deemed competent to practice that which they're gonna practice. And so it already exists within a lot of educational domains. The other thing I just simply ask individuals is to just think of that class that you realize that going to the lecture wasn't that important for you to develop mastery of something. And if you just could take the test right then and there, or at least within a week rather than waiting to the end of the term, like you would've already demonstrated your competency in that particular subject matter. But this is where that seat time model, like we've often left it to just sit there and go, oh, no time is the measure. Of whether or not someone has developed mastery versus letting the time vary and letting the standard for learning be constant across individuals,

Detached audio:

S

Eloy:

So tell us about the legislation that that I mentioned from Senator Romney and, and Senator Hickenlooper. What what is that attempting to do and, and, and why do you think we need to codify C B E I?

Scott:

most of your listeners may be surprised by this'cause WG has now been around for more than a quarter century. There are many other institutions have reasonably scaled cb, you know, competency-based programs and courses that are available out there. And, but maybe we should be too shocked mean the pace of legislative progress is not what it used to be. It certainly seems to move in a glacial pace. But what what's somewhat surprising to me even being new to higher ed is that all of the, the, the construct, the policy framework in which competency-based education today exists is a purely a regulatory one, which really means it's under the rules and guidance provided by the Department of Education. And it's certainly the department itself is operating within the framework that has been provided from a legislation standpoint, meaning the Higher Education Act, et cetera, that they can give guidance for different pedagogical models, different term-based constructs, et cetera. But that's been the. The model by which the CB has existed. And the challenge with that sometimes, as you certainly know, is administrations come and go. They can change their perspectives and opinions about what should be the frameworks for that establish the rules by when institutions and programs and students operate. And competency-based education is not even referenced in statutory language, meaning in the legal language of law, like it's not referenced anywhere. And so this is pretty important. Because now with 2025 plus institutions who have reasonably scaled enrollment in programs that are competency based, wg obviously at large scale in this space, that it's the importance of it means it's dramatically increases the, you know, what is it, it's like the stamp of credibility. It's like the kind of license to innovate more now around competency and pedagogical models that ultimately achieve what all of us want, which is. Individuals accessing high quality education, ensuring accountability and quality around the outcomes of that education model. That's actually, by the way, Eloy, one of the key things about the language is that it, it is increasing the accountability for such programs, for delivering on completion, great relevancy to the workforce, you know, economic immobility outcomes, like those are also part of the language that's being advanced here. For any new model or new innovation, we should hold ourselves accountable for its impact. And if it doesn't work, then why do we why do we legislate it or regulate? It's like, no, we want things to work. And so the rules should actually be such that we increase accountability for institutions and

Detached audio:

All right.

Scott:

programs. that's the goal, is that competency base will actually find itself into the higher education law.

Eloy:

we, we will remain hopeful, but I think you hit on two, you hit on two important points when these questions come up. First of all, innovation has a hard time expressing itself in an environment that's uncertain. If regulation changes all the time. It's really hard for an institution to invest in innovation if it doesn't know If that innovation is going to be allowed under a certain regulatory framework or not. And I think that's certainly a challenge for you. In the past, people have questioned competency-based education and, and so I think having that certainty in statute would certainly help you and others continue to innovate in this space. But also the accountability piece, I mean, it's really hard. To adequately compare yourself against other institutions when you're sitting out here in an environment that's just strictly the regulatory environment and others have the protection, statutory protections. So I do think both of those issues are key. And so I think for those reasons, and you've got two great senators who really get this and understand this, so hopefully, hopefully they will sway their colleagues.

Scott:

think one thing to add to that, if I can, is that In highly regulated sectors, like higher education is especially because of the student finance complex that exists around that, it it creates a risk aversion among institutions to innovate because of those challenges that may, it may present around, you know, going through an audit like g has been through, you know, going through kind of the challenges exist around the money that you're spending to try to innovate. If it could get turned off on a whim or on someone signing something, it's like that is that is detrimental to the innovation disposition that we should have within higher education because what we have has only worked so much. And I think the data is mostly showing that's worked really well for those who've come from higher income backgrounds. We actually need education working for everyone, and we need everyone on pathways to participate in the opportunity and contribute to it. And so we need more models of education. We need more means by which we're actually accessing students. And if there's mostly this regulatory overhang or. You know, this this aversion to innovation because we're worried about impact that it never gives institutions the opportunity to start. But you also hit on the other key point, which I think is part of w G's knitting, and I've said this before, the innovation without impact is just the bad idea. So those that are driving innovation also have to hold themselves accountable for whether or not that innovation works. And if it doesn't work, we don't wanna keep funding things that don't work. Where if, if W G U can also help increase accountability for impact in higher education, even for institutions or programs have existed forever. That's a good thing because we'll actually get the resources and the dollars and the attention going to those things that are increasing access or improving quality, reducing costs, and increasing affordability. All of that's needed now more than

Eloy:

Let's hit on quickly hit on another issue that's come up in Congress that you and I are both familiar with and we've been engaged in. That's the short-term Pell conversation. W G U has been supportive of this effort. H how would your learners benefit if we did have short-term Pell come to fruition?

Scott:

I think in the short answer to that is, is like in the immediate, or the short term is like not very much like we don't have within our portfolio today credential pathways or programs that would be typically within the. The construct of short-term programs and there are already rules on the books related to credit bearing or accredited programs that would already be Pell eligible that are less than a bachelor's degree or even less than associates. This primarily is around programs that are increasingly needed for the rapidly change of World of work. E you and I talk about this a lot, which is. The one and done model of higher ed, meaning go to school after you graduate high school, hopefully finish within four or so years and get this one lump sum thing of education and the rest of your life should be great. However, the world of work is changing so fast such that the skills and capabilities needed in it are, we believe that it's increasing the need for and demand for among the students as well as the employers. More consistent and continual upskilling and reskilling. And that's not gonna happen through four year pathways. You know, this is gonna happen in short term nature. But you also wanna know that those credential pathways, that they're highly relevant to the world of work, that they're coming from accredited institutions and bodies that are, are being held accountable for delivering value for the students, that they're affordable and accessible. And that's where short term PE comes to. Comes to bear that there are many, many working learners out there and many of those also coming from you know, minoritized or disadvantaged backgrounds who even didn't have access. If you'll to more traditional post-secondary pathways, that is a way to dramatically expand access to those pathways that are gonna be relevant to the world work. So it's not gonna impact wgu student population in the near term, but we see it as being aligned with where we see the, you know, the educational work life cycle going in the future, where you'll have more continual upskilling and re-skilling. And those have to be through shorter duration, shorter form formats than a two or four year or a two year master's degree. You know that. So that's how we see that happening, and hopefully it comes about and comes to fruition because I think we'll see a dramatic uptake. affordability is starting to be addressed in a way in activating populations reskill.

Eloy:

Well, I'm hopeful that reskilling and upskilling the American workforce is finally starting to settle in with our policy makers in Washington dc I know many states have already started to, I. Go down this road, so hopefully the federal government follows suit here. Quickly you touched on the issues of technology and the rapidly changing technology in our society, in the workforce, and there's talk in every corner of the ed tech world and the traditional higher ed world about things like generative AI and its impact on post-secondary education. How are you and you, your team, thinking about technology and Specifically G a I to better serve your learners

Scott:

I will say that one thing that we're not particularly concerned about is what probably gets most of the, you know, coverage out there, is the narrative around how students may be utilizing it to, to fake as if they're competent and proficient. And I think that's we're probably less concerned about that because I do believe that we are, have significant investment models by which you can actually have. Authenticated and validated that the individual who is participating in the assessment is that, that you can design the assessments in a way that you can't, you know, have your AI co-pilot with you taking the test, you know? And but I will say that where we're much more encouraged is that if AI is the next generation of technology and tools within the technology domain that help us dramatically improve. The design and development of, of curriculum or to help us dramatically personalize the instruction and services and support around the student lifecycle across that curriculum, if it dramatically increases our ability to increase. What we like to call systemic equity. So you can dramatically remove barriers to access, or you can dramatically remove inherent biases that might exist within curriculum design, et cetera, to advance more systemic equity. So you increase the probability that everyone can succeed. It's in those domains where we see artificial intelligence being particularly interesting. Two examples I'll just use one is how we think about instructional design. I was even reading an article today that if an AI is starting to use content produced by other ai, it could start to rapidly degrade the value of the content. But that doesn't mean that AI can't be a successful co-pilot in helping our instructional faculty or our design faculty in particular, how do we better identify the efficacy of different content options that are out there and increasing the quality and relevancy increasing student? Successfully learning and mastering that content that I think will get better at designing instructional content itself and even assessing and evaluating the different content options are out there, so it improves the quality of the curriculum itself. The other key area that we're really excited about is that if with large language models in particular versus more generative artificial intelligence or. I think the big Sentin AI is the one that has us all worried that the AI start thinking it's alive, you know? But what we're really excited about large language models is that if you get the right dataset going into it, if there were ever a tool that could dramatically increase the context and personalization of the instruction being provided, that's it. Meaning that even with our thousands, of course instructors and thousands of mentors and evaluators like. Here's now, technology can dramatically improve the effectiveness of all of those instructors because it can be very specifically relevant to how that individual student is in their mastery journey of this particular subject matter. It, it just is much more effective and proficient and speedy, and such that it's more timely and relevant to that one student. That for us embodies our culture belief of one by one, you're now solving for each individual student and only advancing outcomes one student at a time. And so we're really excited about that personalization or contextualization of instruction and learning in a way that dramatically increases the probability that every student is successful. And to me, that leads us to that kind of mic drop moment in higher ed that we love to talk about, which is, Regardless of who you are in the background you have, or gender or sexual orientation or whatever it is about your identities, like regardless of all those things that you have an

Eloy:

Right.

Scott:

probability of success is that that's where the personalization learning, I think we'll see a step function increase as we start to apply AI as a

Eloy:

Well, I think that's what excites me the most is the more personalized we can make the experience, the more we can reach learners of all backgrounds, regardless of where they're at in their journey. So Scott, let me ask you one more question as we begin to close. Where do you see W G U going over the next five years, and what excites you about that journey?

Scott:

we certainly are, are, we are not done yet. I think we like to talk about how does WGS innovation continue to hopefully bring about a title effect across the whole sector as to how we rethink design of. Development of curriculum, how we think about instructional models and student lifecycle, how we think about bending the arc of the cost curve in higher education, not just for W G U, but for all of us. There's plenty of being written about that right now, but for Wg U particularly, I think maybe two things that's worth highlighting. One is, We, we love to think about how do we dramatically increase our understanding of the diverse learner profiles that we're serving and the diverse learner profiles exist out there broadly, and where we just ended our conversation about how technology will enable some of these things. The thing that we love to talk about is personalization of instruction and learning. That every individual is actually being served as they need to be served. So it dramatically increases their probability of success. And so we see this as the critical input to truly establishing a systemic equity model of higher education, where in fact that we are we are designing as if we only have one student enrolled and the whole of W G U. It makes it feel like that one student as if it's all designed for them and that one student. And that's, I think something that we are, will be a forever pursuit for us. And that does require both understanding the diversity of the learner profiles. That it's not just about demographic context, that's only just an input to understanding how they may experience or even infer different things about what we're designing. That's just an input. It's not at all those things are defining their worth and their capacity for learning. We're trying to adapt as to how they approach learning and how different tools support them, particularly increase their mastery. The other thing I do think we're contemplating is how do we continue to expand the portfolio of programs and offerings both horizontally and vertically. We know, as we hinted at, is that the future of learning and work is more continual in its notion rather than one and done. And that means that our vertical stacking and scaffolding of our, our credential and pathway offerings will be very different in the future. And at the same time, I think we'll start to discover that the breadth of the domains in which we're offering programs will continue to expand. And that's exciting to us. And lastly I maybe just mention is that we know that there are many who are feeling somewhat disillusioned or they're feeling like their pathways are not accessible, they're not affordable. We have a very deliberate model of how do you continue to reach and access those individuals so they can be activated into those pathways, because if there were ever a time that they need it, now more than ever, we don't want any of these individuals feeling like they're stranded. We don't want any of'em self-selecting out of education because they think it's not accessible, affordable. And so we're continuing to be very deliberate about increasing our reach and support for these individuals wherever they are geographically. Whatever economic circumstance they find'em themselves in, and I'll just give you a taste of that, is that we are dramatically improving the representation from students of color and from low income backgrounds. That's a very deliberate effort on our part, so you can have more equitable. Access. And that combined with the personalization of learning means that the real equity happens. It's not just enrollment, it's actually attainment and, and economic and social mobility outcomes. that work is that continues to define the pursuit of the mission that these governors first founded. That education helps people change their lives

Eloy:

Well, I think that equity note is a great note to end on Scott. Thanks for joining me. Really appreciate the work that you're leading and really appreciate you spending some time with me here on the rant.

Scott:

It is been a pleasure.

Eloy:

Well, you've been listening to my conversation with Scott Pulsifer of Western Governor's University. Thanks everyone for joining me here on the rant. If you enjoyed this conversation with Scott, please hit the like button. Let us know what you thought about the interview and what you think about skills, skills-based hiring and competency-based education. And to hear more episodes, subscribe to this YouTube channel and continue to follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for joining us, everybody, and we'll see you soon.