need the least help. reserving your aid money for student who is need it also serves your economic mission. educating the student who might not otherwise go to college generates a much higher return on public investment than to frame the cost of an education a student might have paid for themselves. we also have to engage in the new role of technology. technology has come a long way. there are tools now that let us build wonderful interactive courses. students are more accepting of this and being part of their

educational experience. in fact, in some cases, their demands are getting ahead of the supply of these things. how do we use technology in variety of ways to augment the education we're providing? technology may serve to help us both in terms of efficiency and in terms of quality. technology should be re-examined to look at the whole college experience. how do we track whether a student is coming to lectures and immediately engage them and understand what's going on with them. that's an area where the four profit sector does some things that are very interesting. we've seen technology enablement come into several different areas for the universities that are piloting these things. adaptive software. students spend more time on the concepts they're struggling

with. hybrid models of instruction improve the quality of education between students and teachers and simulation and gaming can engage students in creative and applied ways. these innovations are largely still at the pilot stage. it will take leadership to move them beyond that. once it's taken to scale, technology can change the financial calculus and give more students an opportunity to earn a degree. there's some interesting models to build on. austin p. state university in tennessee created an e-advisor system called degree compass. it gives students courses by looking at their transcripts and looking at data from hundreds of thousands of previous students. it's almost like the way netflix suggests movies, but instead of just suggesting, it suggests those they will be able to

handle and will help them get to their degree requirements. across the united states, the average student graduates with 20% more credits than necessary. in some cases, this is fine. it's simply them seeking to broaden their educational experience. in many cases, it's because the courses are not available or they didn't have advice about what would be best. applications like to degree compass can address these issues and do it in a way that's straightforward for the institution. the early results have been promising. students do half a letter grade better in classes suggests by degree compass than in classes they picked the old fashion way. similar systems in other universities have improved retention rates by more than 5%. educational technology will probably have its greatest ese

impact in terms of the learning itself. this is arizona state university recently designed its introductory math course. many came in with very poor preparation. instead of lectures, they developed hybrid classes. students are given a piece of adaptive software that looks where they are and understand what is they have learned well and what they haven't. it focuses the student on the knowledge that they don't have. it gives reports to the professor so they can work with students in small groups. nay can organize groups that need help on concept. they can organize groups for peer learning that turns out to be very powerful. the results in this have very

impressive. they take it's often the very worst experience and has terrible completion rates and raise those completion rates by 17% while cutting costs by a third and a large number of students were able to finish weeks before the end of the term. get their math knowledge up to par and still have time to devote to their other classes. certainly in areas like remedial math, i believe the future of education looks more like the course delivered there than like the traditional course delivery. the whole area of so-called moocs, massly openly online courses, are getting a lot of attention. we have had interactive courses

like carnegie melon. is there some breakthrough? in a technology sense there isn't some dramatic breakthrough. what's being done that's very exciting is they are taking three elements. really great video lectures with the interactivity built into those lectures. at ten-minute intervals you're tested on the concepts and you cement those. that's the beauty of great video lectures. the third thing they do is they get a lot of people often as many as 100,000 taking the course at the same time. they have lots of peer education going on where people are answering questions, looking at each other's homework, giving advice and then the teaching staff is reviewing all of that activity to make sure it's high quality and students aren't

being misled. a fourth piece is probably more challenging and that is how does this connect up to degrees or accreditation that employers will value. they are giving out certificates but not fully endorsed degrees. that's an area where there will be some evolution. this is a very important movement. you all need to try it out and think about how your institution should get involved. the courses are free to every one. these courses conserve millions of people. it has a real opportunity to let us step back and think about who are the best lectures and what can we do with interactivity and

how do we need to supplement that with face-to-face study group, hands on laboratories? what are the skill sets that you want to pull in for a hybrid type model? i know some critics worry about the loss of personal interaction. that is central to a high quality education. this technology when well conceived can be used to strengthen those interactions. technology can free up time and let the tustudent who is need hp in a more direct way. we have to contribute and think about what their role should be. we need to look at different types of student.

particularly, student who is are not well-motivated. we can say that original group that signed up for a machine learning course, that was not your average student. those were some highly motivated people. that's where i think the hybrid brand has to come in. tech nomg cannology can't do ev. for schools that want the cutting edge, experimenting in this field is needed. it's interesting to ask would advances in technology allow you to grow more and serve more students. for 150 years higher education has been an incredible source of strength for our country. there's no group of institutions that show that better than the ones represented here. our nation has done better sending lots of young kids to

college than any other. your institutions have shown that equity and opportunity don't need to compromise excellence. if the nation had chartered a different course, 150 years ago, and education continued to be reserved for the select few, there's no doubt that we would be less competitive today. instead, we decided to build something new and better, and created these universities that are the envy of the world. that's why young people keep applying. that's why they are willing to take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt to get a degree because they know the education you provide is the key to the future they want so badly. they know you can make their dreams come true. we face a huge challenge like we did in 1862. how do we cope with these budget constraints without sacrificing the quality on which society

relies? can we be innovative and effective with the most challenged students as we are with therepaired ones? can we apply resource us in new ways to serve everyone that wants access? asking and answering these hard question s the key to building on the legacy that you inherited and that you now hold. i believe it's key to the future of our country. i have great optimism that you will once again summon your ability to innovate. you'll see clearly where higher education needs to go and lead us all there. thank you. [ applause ] >> i told you he'd challenge us. now we get chance to challenge him a bit.

we're going to open up for questions. i know there's some people in the audience that are chomping at the bit. i'm having trouble seeing everyone. somebody. i know where the microphones are. i'm going to ask the first question while you're figuring out the logistics. one of the issues that some of our institutions have, bill, is that young people are coming out of high school unprepared for college work. they have to take remediation, developmental education. your foundation supports work in that area. it's something you're interested in. i wonder if you could share what you found to be the most promising? >> definitely the boundary between high school and higher education is really not

well-handled today. if you're a student in high school, you ought to be able to go online and have some preassessment of your math capeability. you should never get surprised by the result you get. it's really disheartening for that student. they just get a number. they don't get told you need to work on fractions or scientific notation. they get this number and go into remedial course and they sit there. they're not sure every day is this the part that i understand or is this the part that i completely messed up. 70% of those kids that go to that math class never get a degree. it's bad in every way. the ideal is to have the set of knowledge we expect you to have in math say algebra to have that be well understood.

there's the so-called common core effort that's been adopted by 46 states that will lead to that. you can have different textbooks and different ways of teaching the but the core concept is the same. the online material that has adopted to this common core very quickly over the period of the next few years, the different states are getting their textbooks and teacher training into that. that will be coupled with these free online exams that you can try your knowledge out and be pointed to various material that will help you glet. we hope to take this disconnect to make it kind of clean up these problems and have it be a lot more open about what's going on and a lot more efficient, a lot more positive for that student.

that's a boundary that's been very problematic particularly for kids coming out of inner-city high schools. >> question. okay. >> thank you so much for being here. i'm the chancellor at north carolina state university. you visited many college campuses. i know you get a charge out of interacting with your students. tell us what you think the challenges and opportunities are for students these days? >> it's interesting to talk to kids about how did they pick an institution and how clear were they about their goals as they were going into the institution. there's a big difference between kids who have a career goal and

ones who don't. it's fascinating to talk to them about how much do you work during school. how will you thinking about this debt you're building up over time? what do you think about the quality of your teachers? do you give feed back about the different experiences you're having? the one thing i've been interested in are the kids who don't complete. the fact that even in these very top institutions, six years later, 40% haven't completed. it's surprisingly high. sitting down and talking to them, where do you feel like you got lost? what kind of intervention would have made a difference? was it mostly financial? were you discouraged by your ability? why did that go off track? clearly there's a lot of amazing

professors who reach out and get engaged with students. it's always wonderful to hear about that. it makes you think, if that's the best practice, is that measured? is that rewarded? how would that spread out to other universities? it's always impressive to me the energy the students put in to get an education. it's this leap of faith that you're going to spend this four years and that's going to do something great for you. you look at those application rates that are even stronger today. the economy, if anything, meant more people wanted to have that credential. it's phenomenal. on the side as an employer, we went to the elite institutions and we took to the degree we cou could, hired the best students. we were picky about where we went to hire and what courses we

thought they should have taken. we were expecting the universities. we weren't considering ourselves the ones who would fix some lack of education. we were going to pick the people who were already very well prepared. it was on the institutions hands to give somebody those skills. >> you mentioned something that i think is important. we're interested in increasing graduation rates in this country. that's a goal that every institution in this room shares. one of the things that aplu works on now is a different way of looking at graduation rates. we don't capture the students that transfer and graduate from another institution, which is a significant number in american higher education. where question add to the data available, which will help us understand better the path for college students in america.

another question. >> good morning. i'm president of montana university. do you have any additional ways in which technology can be enhanced, and what is your advice to institutions who want to lead in this area especially in the current budget environment? >> well, there's no doubt that these technology enablement should be able to help with budget constraints. if you take the lectures of your big courses and choose to put them entirely online, that's not to have a physical get together. in many cases that takes what the key enrollment limit is for those courses and gets rid of it. it's the size of that lecture hall in many, many cases.

if you actually have feedback systems where you take the study groups that are often for adjuncts and helps you understand who is doing a good job and you have a review system that rewards excellence in those roles, then that is the real thing ta drives the quality or the people in those study sections. they are kind of an irony right now that the large lecture which technology can provide something that is better because you're using the world class lecture. it's interactive in way you're not having to go 30, 60 minutes without sitting and practicing the knowledge that you're gaining, and there's clear proven evidence that stopping and doing that interacting really improves the retention and understanding of the

material. why isn't that being grabbed onto? i think the financial pressure hasn't been strong enough for some studeinstitutions to take leap. hardly adopted at the stage what so ever. that's partly why we're at the beginning. if we don't get the hybrid mode, we're going to get eventually a system of accreditation that has the same prestige as college degrees which is independent of how you learn the knowledge. there will be who certify that you have the equivalent of a four-year degree. employers will trust that just as much.

that will have a lot of people experimenting how they can compare people with that. there will be this system that grows up outside of traditional education. particularly, to the degree these online systems aren't adopted within the mainstream education. >> there you go. >> chance hllor of university o tennessee. it looks like you focus on community colleges for funding. i was wondering if you would explain why you're doing that. >> that's absolutely correct. other than our scholarship program that ends up sending kids primarily to four-year colleges and very high quality four year colleges like there

one, a lot of what the rest we have done has been focused on community college. i think most of what we're doing there in terms of how you track students and help intervene as students are having problems, re-designing the remedial math and reading and writing courses, i think a lot of that has applicability to all colleges. when we look at where low-income students end up going in this country, it's overwhelmingly to community colleges. fortunately, many of those students, if they do well after two years, then they show up in your institutions. there's some selection bias there because they the end to have a better completion rate if they have gone through and done that. they have a somewhat better completion rate than people who come to you in the first year. it's a very attractive coheorco. it's a cohort we should all want

to grow. they are getting a four-year degree for lower cost than people who take another path through the system. we saw that there was less philanthropic money. there was more of a need for student tracking. more of a need for actual measurement of who the good professors were, and there was an ability to, when you have adjunc adjuncts, there's lots of challenges with that, but it's a system when you have a quality measure you can immediately decide who to give bonuses to. who to bring back and who not to bring back. the payback on quality understanding is very, very high where as if you put that into another system, what are you

going to do with the data that comes out of it. we hope our stuff has broad application, but i'd say it's been probably three-quarters more focused on community college. the different loan type policies touches the whole system. we're quite worried that if the amount of federal money for education shrinks, a lot of people talk about that happening, will that be done? can we minimize the amount it happens and can we make sure it's done in the most effective way? >> okay.

>> i'm president of the university of idaho. one of the concerns i have is the number of young people that are tracking in the stem disciplines, it goes beyond the preparations.getting them excit math, engineering and science. how we can get them to be interested and stimulate a pipeline for these students into our universities? >> it's fairly stunning fact that all the rich countries, europe, japan, the u.s. less and less of their graduates are going into science and engineering. yet, if you look at the salaries and the job means, they're very strong. you have very unusual things like computer science department, the top computer science departments in the united states many of them are

over 50% foreign born. the uc berkeley science department, which is super top notch, 77% foreign born. then you get this irony, which is if you go to hire those people and they can't get an h1b1 card. where ever they working people create jobs around those engineers, but we do it where ever we can get the engineers. to the degree they have to go back to india or china, then that forces those other skill sets to be developed in those countries. there's an attrition of science and math that starts in high school. the first year of college drops

off a lot at the end of college it drops off a lot. as people come to microsoft, more of the women move into marketing and general management roles than the males do. we have this incredible attrition, both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of women and minorities. by the time you take an engineer who has been working for ten years, that's a very male, non-minority, it's a very asian and caucasian percentage that's doing that. how we can make math and science less daunting? how we can make the image of those careers different. i think there's good work doing on with that. some of the way that scientists taught in high school, i have a new online thing that's called big history that teaches the

sciences in different ways. i know some universities have combined a number of the science courses. we really need to seek out best practices on that. those jobs, more than other jobs, people can say i'm biassed, but those do the end to drive your economic future. it's ironic that we're not driving those things. the fastest growing major in the u.s. is physical education. historically, the u.s. put people into the new field. now in terms of having people in the cutting edge fields. either are a bit scary in terms of us relative to asian countries. >> thank you. this is now, i'm going to ask the last question because i've been charged with keeping control of the sed