. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

we had to do something very exciting with the cell phone. we announced the third party test results of our diamond on glass technology. this brought to the question of the world, can diamond proviede what we need? can we have scratch-resistant and a harder display so we don't have to replace our phone when

we drop it? the speculation was going absolutely wild. when are we going to see a diamond cell phone. i thought i would bring the first diamond glass screen. not only is it here. we don't make this for one unit. we make this for 300 million units. this technology is here today. the next question after this is, this is great. this is something for a diamond screen or a wearable screen. what does this mean in terms of the readiness of the technology? i thought we would look at comparative properties between diamond and the rest of the class market. diamond is harder, much hire thermal conductivity. when your phone is to your face, it is going to be running more cool. from 800 times thinner profiles

compared to the leading glass competitor, over six times stronger material and ten times stronger material, all at a scale which means we can actually produce this on a cost basis. but, if you check the papers this morning, we actually upped the ante and announced the world's first diamond glass lens. this is on commercial bk-7 glass. between these two products, we have the entirety of the addressable glass surface on your consumer electronic devices. when we talk about the prospect, is this material ready for market, we see it employed and seeing the broad, broad spectrum of consumer electronics. that's very exciting. this was an idea that was not only originated in the labs with the united states, developed here, researched to scale.

now, brought to product prodeckprodeck production. we could state innovative science started here, will be developed here and we have committed to bring this to mass scale. we are very proud to be doing this in the midwest. please track our efforts under diamond prairie. thank you. our next panel will explore opportunities, talents, technology, investment and infrastructure. please welcome mr. jim bosilli, co-founder, institute of new economic thinking and former chairman and ceo, research in motion, mr. mike fucci, mr.

jonis pricing, chairman and chief executive officer, man pure group, dr. carol l. folk, university of carolina, miss nia mali malika henderson, senior political reporter, cnn. hi, everybody. thanks for being here. it is great to be here with these folks here. we really want to start the four pillars, talent, infrastructure, investment and technology. we want to start talking about talent first . i want to start with you, jonis. the idea of learnability, the idea of upskilling and what do you mean by that? what sort of responsibility do you think employers have in terms of that area? >> part of this day has been

really encouraging from the aspect of talent. i think ever since we began our morning with dr. khan, dr. crow, brad farrell for lunch and fred smith, everyone has talked about access to skilled talent as being an absolute necessity for our nation to be competitive. it is true not only for the u.s. but for all of the developed world as well as the developing world. the labor markets are being affected by structural changes, technology, globalization. demographics on an aging workforce and population and developing and developed countries alike, individuals making different choices thinking about organization agility in a very different way. all of this translates into a bifurcation of the workforce. i think it was dr. crowe who talked about this this morning.

out of the u.s. workforce, there are 60%, 70% of the workforce that is fully employable and has the right skills to participate and be competitive and 30% of our workforce and population that is not participating. the biggest challenge that is facing us to be competitive is going to make sure that we as a nation have access to a broad pool of skilled workforce. so we know sod that 30% of the workforce has a low or is unskilled or does not have enough skills to participate and be successful in a global, competitive environment. that will be the defining challenge of our generation, to figure that out. as brad fairer talked about, during lunch, if it is a very complex, structural driven global issue, there is not going to be a simple answer. we have known about this and we have seen indicators of our performance in terms of skills,

compared to our global peers as nations for quite sometime. this is not new. we have not really been able to make the turn. in actual fact i would argue that the current trends of bifurcation of the workforce, the polarization between the haves and the have-notes based on the skills they have to productivity contribute is going to accelerate. there is no indication it is going to mitigate and/or converge at this point. so that's what's going to be so important for us to figure out. >> carol, one of the things that's going on with this bifurcation, in terms of the workforce. one of the things that also seems to be going on is decline in investment, federal investment in terms of science. is that a trend you see reversing? has it stalled? where do you see things now? >> i get to start off with some good news. just two days ago, congress did

pass legislation that was going to increase nih by about $4.8 million for some important targeted areas. i mean $4 billion and $4 billion on an annual basis. for all of us, that is good news. we are excited about it. i think the needs are greater. the opportunities even greater. i think that's where we start thinking about how can that investment be understood? can we do a better job making clear that if an investment comes back, people have been arguing that we can make clear that that investment isn't only going to help, it is critical. i think of it as being an investment in the workforce. we can probably talk about that more. universities are places where in these areas of science, technology, that's where the young people get excited. they get the skillsets. we made a bet in america after world war ii that if we brought innovators into universities

where they were also teaching young people werks would create the entrepreneurial mind-set necessary to stay great. when the money starts drying up, those people have a harder time doing what they do. they tend to retrench and become morris can adverse. they tend to become less likely to increase the embrace of lots of different areas. so that talent force changes. the idea force changes. so another piece of good news is that it's related to bad news. last year, n.i.h. had 50,000 proposals. i'm a reviewer, as are many people in this room. at least 25,000 of them had amazing work in them. if you run a business where you are throwing out 25,000 great ideas every year, you have to start wondering about your business model. but if we start increasing that even a bit, we've got people ready. so if the money comes in, we're not in a position where we have

a desert of ideas. so it has the capacity to really fuel economies and i know all my colleagues out there could say they have these studies. a little bit of fuel from the government, for example, at chapel hill, we did a big study for every dollar we get from the federal government, we generate $7-9 in additional money that goes to fuel research back to the economy. we hire 100,000 people in the state. so i could go on about that. i think the good news is that should these investments increase, we're ready. the bad news is, if they don't, these pipelines that are holding on could hit a point where it's going to be a lot harder for them to actually take advantage of what is sitting ready for us to use. >> mike, i want to go to you.

you have done research in terms of the manufacturing sector and emphasis in terms of this new information coming in. you have specifically done research on vulnerability of infrastructure in terms of cyberattacks, something i hadn't necessarily thought of. >> i apologize with a voice. i came up with a cold this morning. >> it is kind of sexy. >> very sexy. >> it is a very interesting dynamic. what we are seeing is we are seeing that right now innovation is the pillar of growth. i really love what brad said at lunchtime. around the fact that you must be innovative, carol said about the entrepreneurship. what we are seeing is what happens clearly is human error, cybersecurity becomes an open issue with innovation. the conundrum that any company

has, you don't want to stifle innovation. things get more complex using ecosystems, not only developing your own product but working with other partners to develop a product and bring it to market. you are only as good as your weakest link. you can't really secure yourself against human error. number one is tone at the top. i think every organization from the board to the executive needs to have cybersecurity at the top of their list. everything they do, they have to make sure that not only are they supporting innovation but they are doing it in a harmonized way. making sure they are sitting back and looking at their cybersecurity procedures and continuing to look at them. it's not something you could put together once and put on a shelf and not remember it. they need to be updated. every time there is a breach, they find something else out.

you can't stifle innovation. it is really important. things are getting more complex, more globalized using ecosystems. it is a balance of how do you push innovation while at the same time watching for cyberrisks. >> jim, i wonder if you could talk about america in relation to where other countries are in terms of investment and infrastructure. we talked about this global economy and this global erase towards innovation. where is this country. >> yes, thank you. i think i'm going to build on what fred smith said this morning and i think as you tried to drive your innovation globally, you have to assess the ecosystem globally that you are going to participate in, because that ecosystem determines the

reaccept matt tift ar recept tiffity and capacity to globalize your ideas. the primary underpinning is called trips, trade relation int property systems. what was happening through tpp, which mr. smith was advocating is generally called trips plus. in europe, they said, i am not in for trips plus. i want trips. china says, i'm more interested in trips minus p i'm not trying to be pejorative. you could make a fair case for that. i'm simplifying a little bit. you have a new administration that's saying i don't like trips plus. is that because it is not good enough? i want trips plus plus or because trips wasn't right and i want to look at something else.

this is an uncertain environment to commercialize in. there are rivalries cans. it is merchantileist. i find it highly unlikely they are going to come together in the near term. this is a different situation for commercializing globally in the next decade. i study these things a fair bit. one study, which is very interesting for your chair, in ag tech patents, 92% of all ag tech patents from university research were from china. they published over 1 million patents. this is a land grab and good game theory is, stay out of the game until you get enough land and then come back in, which is rivalryist and mer can tillist.

i believe this is the most pressing issue to dploeglobaliz right now. the rules systems are difficult verging and becoming quite political. evidence what's happening in the election and the relationships to the east and to the west and all of their turbulence and nativeism. i think this is going to be central to figuring out how we commercialize ideas in the neck decade. >> one of the things the obama regime has tried to do, stem education, bringing more women and encouraging girls to go into stem fields. has that mattered? have you seen a difference in terms of conversation around that or in terms of interest? >> well, everyone that is in

higher ed spends a lot of time trying to think about disparity gaps, about the changing demography of america and the fact that we look around this room or the rooms and higher education at the top, most of us look the same. there aren't that many that look like me. and even fewer that look like a lot of our students. we think a lot about bringing them in. i do think about going back to title 9. that's had a big influence in bringing diversity into our infrastructure and research. a lot of the examples of the value of diverse teams come from entrepreneur heir yas where they talk about, you put six people in a room that come from the same brac grouackground, you ge same idea. you are going to get something really dynamic. this goes back to me about investment. one of the great ways investment in research and i'm talking mostly university research but it is all research one of the things it does is give us a

chance to also address other societal problems. we use that research to develop a diverse team of young people who start fueling as they move up with ideas like the way the obamas did it or you get more and more people, you are going to see the diversity of the ideas to increase and we have a chance to also start reducing those income disparities that go with people thinking they are limited to disciplines in certain areas. that women can't do science or students of color can't become engineers. as we erase those boundaries, we start doing immense good, not only for the science, the stem that we are doing but for the goal that we have to diversify the workforce and make the talent pool so much more energetic. i think they go together. >> do you want to jump in, jon?s

>> not only are we making it much more energetic, the clear business case is that diversity of thought drives better business outcomes. the participation of women depending on where they are in the world is either lower or significantly lower than that of men. in almost all of those cases, the level of education for the very same women is higher than it is for men. if you think about a demographic that is shrinking in all of the developed world, all country ns europe have a shrinking population with one exception, which is france. we are holding our own. within our own country, roughly the same demographic tendencies are occurring. our need to bring in skilled talent into the workforce is huge and women, the biggest unskilled pool that is not fully utilized. that is certainly the case also here in the united states. >> there also seems to be, jim, sort of a turn away from

globalism and thinking that america is part of this larger economy in terms of immigration and bringing talent in. is that going to affect kind of diversity if there is this shrinking away, jim, from thinking that america is part of this global economy? >> i think there is without a doubt a talent war, no question. i think america does exceptionally well, because of the quality of the education institutions and the base of their company. so you have a bit of an embarrassment of riches but, of course, it can never be good enough. how you manifest that, there was a comment from the gallup gentlemen who said there is more innovation and business formation and dynamism is going down so i do think how you manifest all this into prosperity and productivity, i believe the gating element is

much more infrastructure personally, because, as dr. foelts said, there is a lot of talent out there and not the infrastructure to receive it. in her case, that's more of a research than business thing. i think it is a pretty good metric. i think the infrastructure is a very, very important piece to look at and i think, again, i'm trying to build off of things. mike talked about the cyber. people are all excited about block chain. it is really glat becaureat bec allows all this stuff and allows people to do things without being tracked. a lot of these things raise complex issues all along the way. >> mike? >> the one thing, the question about stem, what we realize in the business environment, we have been a huge proponent of stem. science, technology, mathematicians, we are down into

high schools now. we have to start earlier and earlier. we are talking about programs for freshmen in high school. we believe that now. internships in sophomore years of college, it is not good enough. we have to start much, much younger. we have been investing. there is probably a big ah-hah that we have had. if you speak to the people in their 20s who have joined us in the past five, six years, they look at things totally differently. they believe you have to start early and getting the diverse skills embedded much, much earlier. we are putting in programs looking as early as freshmen in high school. totally different than when i started. >> does anybody have questions in the audience? >> i have something to add. when we talked about skill shortages, we survey employers all over the world and here in

the u.s. around their need for talent and whether they can find it in labor markets. 40% of the employers we survey are saying they have difficulty finding talent. what's encouraging is almost 50% of the same employers are now saying they are investing in training for their work force, where the same answer would have been a 20% of employers saying they had a hard time finding people but only 12% were invistiinvis investment and training. that is going to be key. it comes back to the question you asked at the very beginning. organizations will have a responsibility and a self-interest in making sure they develop training and development for the workforces that they have. longer term, we believe that the best predictor of employability may well be something we called learnability. the desire and the ability to

learn. we talked about the changes occurring in markets and globalization and how they are changing and the different forces. it is going to be very difficult for employers and educational institutions to predict what the skills are going to be 18 years out that are going to be specifically on the hard skills that are going to be need. of course, stem skills are always going to be in demand in a digitized world. the ability to have a workforce that is used to acquiring new skills as they go along will protect us and will render us and make us even more competitive through the time. we think that that's going to be a key driver of employability. we think it can be. one of the biggest drivers of competitive advantage, if we crack that, we will have a workforce that will stay competitive, not only be in phases competitive and then having to catch up like is the case right now? >> dr. foltz? >> i think we need to develop a

whole generation. i love the idea that competitiveness might be pressured at a big metric. it only builds from a lot of individuals. those that develop the skills of a researcher, the synthesis, the probing, the grit, you build something new, that is what we used to do the best anywhere. that was the real surge in america. if we dry up those pipelines, we really do dry up that inventiveness. by fueling it and doing it in such a way we build those partnerships, we start every single student, every single learner has that capacity to be that innovator. i think that's part of the good news too. the investments that it takes is actually small. so what is n.i.h. is $30 billion. the health care is $3 trillion. these are rounding errors. each company has capacity to build these partnerships with universities in ways that can be

amazingly transformational for every single individual. if we don't do that, though, we don't have a chance to really expand this at the rate and speed we want to. universities have a lot of real estate. we are starting to share that with business partners and bring them in. we have this capacity to do it. we are at this moment where a little bit, specially given the willingness to reach across the sectors, seems to be at a point that it really could escalate but it needs that intention that i think meetings like this give us when we come together and talk about it. >> jim, in terms of what you would want to see in terms of emphasis and investment and moving forward, from the private sector, government sector, in terms of partnership, what do you want to see and what do you expect to see?

i think r.c.o. said it earlier today, that innovation has had unequal distribution elements to it. i think when you realize you don't pay attention to that, it rears itself in surprising fashions. now, everybody is grahamipplingh that. everybody is sold as it trickled down, everybody would get a fair shake. it didn't work out that way within and between states. i think that's a lot of the reason why people are pulling back right now. i'm not trying to say let's just spread everything to everybody. i think the inattention to the investments in distribution, it is not a justice case but you could make it that. i think it is a functioning society thing. i think that's really, really important. there is no end of possible innovation, things you can invest in. you have heard them all today.

they are very, very compelling, each and every one of them. i do believe that how this is going to work in the world, you have seen how europe is pulling back. you have seen how -- you have seen the rapling with china. you have seen tpp go up and go down, people saying, come on, bring it back up again. i think in that's going to gate a lot of this really good talent and this really good desire to investment and i think that the new administration is going to be overwhelmed with the things they have to do. so i would say distilling these things into clear priorities would be the thing that i would think would be the most constructive thing to do in 2017 with this new administration. that's going to be drinking water from a fire hose and trying to get to some kind of manageable way you can move ahead on it. >> mike, what's your sense? >> i actually agree with what jim said. i would say from a business

perspective, there is a challenge between look at innovation and not tying it to a kind of short-term pnl. innovation is long-term. i think at our firm, one of the challenges we have is the ability to -- innovation isn't a yearly thing. it could take something five, six, ten years. if you get behind something, you have to stick with it. there are opportunities at times, the market changes, finance changes, the first thing people do is want to cut investments. it is really the long-term investment. to your point, you have to be able to call something if it is not going to work, it is not going to work. you have to be able to call it. everything that's innovative doesn't mean it is going to work. the ability to seed out what is going to work and what isn't and if it is, invest in it long. sometimes we are very short sighted. >> i would love to say something about that. i think one of the ways universities have a different model than businesses, we have

to invest in the discovery based long-term. big example. zeke zika virus, we would nobody where had we not had researchers studying all sorts of things that had nothing to do with zika virus. then, when it comes up, the ten individuals that had been working on that were there. another example is chris burg. this whole movement toward rethinking in transformative medicine might have started 30 years ago. i was hearing from someone who was looking at viruses and bacteria. it didn't look like anything and it took 30 years and we are on the cusp of the biggest invention. i am really glad you said that. we need to help the new administration understand that directed research is wonderful. we love it. we can do great things with it. it all dries up if we don't continue the basic research. i think that's what you were saying. i really appreciate that too.

>> jonas, what about you, in terms of a new administration, encouraging them to focus on what exactly in terms of innovation? >> if we think about the areas that could drive tremendous growth, investments and infrastructure, a reduction of regulation and, of course, making the labor markets competitive and also ease of growth in terms of companies and their ability to track talent, the key issue is going to be reskilling and upskilling individuals that are outside of the workforce and the ones in the workforce, upskilling them while they are there so they can continue to evolve. our employment is at 4.6%. we can argue about the workforce participation rate, which is lower than before the presession. give 2%. regardless of which, we are following a number of hallmarks of a reasonably tight labor market. there is certainly slack. some are underemployed. some have left the workforce.

the ones that are underemployed and that are outside of the workforce probably at this point don't have the skills to actively, easily participate in a lot of the things that strong world could generate. i think that's going to be a systemic approach, both and i know the panel after us is going to talk about education and the need for education in the long-term. certainly, in the short-term, to deploy a lot of people into infrastructure projects is going to be challenging. speaking to a number of the companies that are involved in the big infrastructure project, their biggest problem is finding infrastra infrastructure engineers. that's going to be the reality of hitting into the shortage of talent that can realize so many of those things. my hope and optimism around this would be that there is a structural and systemic approach around really rescaling the american workforce. a skills revolution in the

budding is what we are hoping for. we think that truly can drive our competitiveness to untold heights. not only in the short-term but also in the medium and certainly in the long-term. >> any questions out there? there we go. >> hi. martha legunas from the college of engineering at texas university. i have a question for people who come from industry. as we invest resources in programs to education engineering undergraduates for innovation and what we call the mind sort of entrepreneur, what are the two or three things that you believe are the most important things in knowledge and skills that we should be focusing on? thank you. >> who wants to take that. >> well, we are probably all working on that same thing. i think it is the skills of

learning when you hit a wall, how do you turn and develop the synthesis for other skills. i think she wants to hear what you in the business world would tell all of us at universities. >> i'll try. so what i would say at university would be i think you use the term the inquiz tiff mind. what we are looking for now as students is even if you come a firm like ours and think you know what you want to do, have the ability to say, in two years, i may use that skill but too something different. the difference is coming in. when i joined a firm, you kind of had a career path of ten years. you knew what you wanted to do in ten years. now, we want the students to almost make two-year commitments. innovation is moving so quickly. we don't want to lock them in for something. we want two-year commitment and then in two years, you may have an engineering background but we may want you to do something around analytics or something

else. it is almost this multi-year commitment to continual learning. >> the balance between the hard skills and the soft skills. it is going to be more about not only the hard skills you come out of school with but also the soft skills that let you apply it. access to knowledge today is ubiquitous. hard knowledge can be acquired. experience can be leapfroged, because you have access to an understanding at a much more rapid pace today. this notion of transferability between industries and various aspects of what you do within an organization is going to be increasingly important. >> jim, you want to jump in? >> in the innovation game, it generally has zero production costs. you are trying to insert yourself into a value chain with zero marginal production costs.

that's an extraordinarily extended production exercise. people that have sophisticated stem skills, if they can marry them with the in navigation skills which are different in d the ideas rather than traditional economy. the people that do that well have extraordinarily valuable tech companies. that's the dancing in that you do. anyone that brings those to an organization, they are in the "c" sweuite quicker. >> the youngest generation coming in are most excited about doing this. i walk down the hall and i meet students who have started their first company in their first year and they are already talking about the second, third, and fourth companies they are going to start. that's another part of the hopeful part, is that when we give them just tiniest bit. they are ready to leap at it. i think they want to know what it takes to do that. they need to have the chance to have a risk/fail, risk/fail and

be successful. we have the material and the opportunity. so we just have to get those double "t" -- t squared, i quared. scared. >> on that note, which is very helpful, we are going to end. we thank you for your questions and attention. to address the nation's skills gap, please welcome the president of northeastern university, dr. joseph e. aun and the chairman and chief executive officer of northrop grummond, mr. wes bush. good afternoon, everyone.

i would like to start by thanking the council of competitiveness. you brought us together. we are old buddies now. we have been doing that for some time. last month, wes was at northeastern university and we had a dialogue like that. we want to talk about the skills gap. we have tons of surveys to share with you. the surveys are an indication. they don't provide you with the solution. let's start by discussing some of the surveys at tthat the buss round table has doing. you have been leading those. give us a flavor, wes, of what you found out? >> the business round table just recently did a survey of its members. not surprising, because i think the survey results were quite similar to other surveys the chamber has done as well as other independent or nonbusiness organizations. i would say there are some elements of the survey results that you could predict but there

were also some interesting insights. some of the more predictable survey results were the number of companies, and in our case, it was greater than 80%, that cited a significant skill shortage in their ability to find the talent they need and to support the business objectives they had. not surprisingly as well, much of that skill shortage goes to the stem disciplines. just about every survey you see, you get that sort of flavor and stem is a big category. i think we all often think of the engineering shortage that we hear so much about. interestingly, the mathematics part and basic science part of it were identified as shortages as well. in addition to the disciplines, though, some of the other feedback that we have got in the survey, i thought was particularly insightful was the identification of some broader sort of general applied skills that from a business perspective we all look for and we try and

keep track of how well we are doing. things like critical thinking, the ability to attack a problem and really dive into it and test a lot of different perspectives and come up with innovative and different perspectives. cognitive flexibility was another category we saw identified by many, many business and, again, i think as a reflection of the pace of change that we have in the business environment, in fact, in the world around us. it was for me a confirming survey of many of the things that i have seen in other surveys. it was insightful in some areas i don't think it quite got the attention it needed. >> let me take the compliment set. we just surveyed the college students nationwide. we didn't do it ourselves. we commissioned a firm to do it. what we found is that only 14% of the students feel they are ready for the new world, for the a.i. world, for intelligence

systems, for tech revolution, that they know is going to hit them. they know the jobs are going to be redefined. it is interesting to compare the employers and at the same time the learners. the employers keep saying, you know, colleges and universities are not doing a good job. the college students, only 14% feel they are getting ready for that. clearly, we need to do something together about it. we are hear to talk about partnerships and what can be done. starting with you, wes, you have been working with many universities and partnering with universities. what do you look for in the partnership? >> there has been a model out there for a long time that businesses utilized and working with universities that has

served some of the interest of business. there has been a broader awakening we need to develop some very, very different models. the older model was a combination of obviously building good partnerships with the career office. we want to make sure we are there and represented well and branded well when it comes to the recruiting. also, sponsoring research and development was sort of a traditional model. it is important that we continue to do those things. we have all realized it is just not enough. it is not solving the problems that we are seeing. i'll have to give a lot of credit to the business higher education form. we together are members of bhef and have been for some time. a number of years ago where we continued to identify these problems, we decided to pilot some different approaches and test what would work and what would not.

we have found some models and applied it in the fields of cybersecurity and in the field of data analytics in a number of university settings around the country. to your question about what are we looking for, what works, first off, you have to have a partnership approach and it has to work both ways. the universities has to be open to engaging with business in a little bit of a different manner and business has to be open to changing its model of engagement. what's been working in these new models has been a much deeper level of collaboration. it goes all the way in many c e cases to a co-development of curriculum. the business makes an investment and the university makes the investment. they come together with employees of the business to define what some of the curriculum components need to be. this isn't a training program. i want to be careful about that up front. often times, people hear this

description and say, we are turning university into training. that is not the intent. it has to be education and broad education. directly to the point you were raising regarding the foodback from students. we want students not just trained for the one instant thing. we want them to work for us over the course of a lifetime and continue to glrow. they need that broad education. that said, there are some basic things that they needed to to get started that perhaps they did not need some years ago. this model of engaging more closely with business around the notion of developing curriculum. how we do things like internship and co-op program, northeastern is from my perspective the world leader in defining how to have co-op programs be the most effective but actually engaging in the design and development and, by the way, in the funding of those things. business has to step up and work

together with the universities so these things are supportable. none of these things are inexpensive. it is a little bit of a broader awakening across the business community that we can't simply stand by and conduct our surveys and complain. we need to be engaged and be a part of the solution. we look for universities like northeastern that are eager to partner and are eager to actually help us learn about what works and what doesn't work. universities like northeastern bring so much to that engagement. >> thank you, wes. when i talk to my colleagues in higher education, that is clearly in a big unease about. we don't want you to come and talk to us about how to shape a curriculum. however, at the same time, when we get together with our employers and we sit douwn, we have 3,000 employers work wuss. we send out students on

long-term internships called co-opts. when we sit down and look at the type of person we are looking for, it is clear that we have to change the way we are doing it, the way we are providing education. what we are hearing from our employers is really simple. we need you to get our learners, our students ready for the new economy. what does it mean? there is a new literacy. we all know about it. they need to know coding. coding would become high priority. they need to know about beyond the tech literacy, data analytics, big data. they need to know about the human interaction, what i call the human literacy. you are here at leaders. you didn't become leaders because you were great engineers only. >> that does help, by the way. >> that is specially for you, wes. you knew how to lead people, how

to motivate people, how to understand people. that's what we are not doing well enough of. the second aspect that i want to discuss with you, wes, here is that i am afraid that we in higher education are giving up an enormous opportunity. there are new ideas and jobs that are coming to the floor and the jobs are becoming obsolete. people have to retool and define what they do. the notion of lifelong learning is with us. higher education looked at lifelong learning as something very peripheral. we don't want to touch it much, because we want to focus on 18-22 on the grads. we want to do research in ph.d.. but don't talk to me about

lifelong learning. this will bring down the brand. we are coming like the rail weigh-in dorail way industry. they missed the transportation evolution, because they defined themselves as being in the rail weigh-in does stri and not in the transportation industry. i think that's what's happening to us in higher education. we are not thinking of ourselves of being in the life-long learning mission. so when i talk to you, wes, i ask you, you have employees, recruiting employees, you cannot say to them, you are set once and for all. >> heavens, no. >> what do you look for? you must have extensive training, correct? >> absolutely. >> to have them retool, to have them get into new phase. every time a company tells me that they have set up an educational program, it is a

failure of higher education. higher education has to do it. >> what do you look for in lifelong learning? >> let me say a couple things. one, most companies don't want to be in the education business. that's not what we do as our primary business. but most of us are. in fact, in the survey that we did in the business round table, on average, across the company that is we surveyed, on average, companies were spend being $80 million a piece on continuous education to their employees, much of which were internal investments, because they didn't have these partnerships. they didn't have this capacity twork wi to work with the universities on this continuous, lifelong training. we look for universities that have that flexibility to deal with beyond the 22-year-old age point or the ph.d. age point and engage with us in the development of programs that our employees can benefit from.

because what may sound like a criticism of higher education, let me say up front, i am a strong believer in the united states that we continue to have the very best higher education system that exists on the globe. what we are talking about is here is improving something that's great, but we have to improve it. because our needs for this, whether we're talking about the economic security of our company or the national security of our country, we critically depend on the quality of higher education and the engagement of higher education. so these partnerships really are opportunities for us to connect in a deeper way and more meaningful way. and as a real opportunity not just company level. it comes down to the employee level. this means a great deal to employees. >> when we start talking about those partnerships and those opportunities, it led us to rethink our own model. for instance, when you work with people for are long on experience and short on time,

namely professionals already in the field, you cannot tell them come and spend two years with me. no one has the time. so universities have to move into the short what some people call the boot camps. actually, you know what happens, is there are companies that start boot camps in coding. they are doing that because there is an enormous need. now the need will be fulfilled. in terms of data analytics, we started a boot camp. that was the first for us at northeastern. i think we were one of the first, maybe the first university to have done it. because we had to learn, if you want to meet the need, you have to meet it based on the terms of the company or the people who want to learn about that. come here for a certain time. you know, whether you are in the company or whether you are with us, it doesn't matter. but you don't have time. we're going to provide it around eight weeks.

similarly, you know, we have to devise a new curricula. when you have to the sit down with an employer and look at curricula, forget it. that is unacceptable. however, we have to do it because we have to the learn what the needs are. for instance, we have an enormous onshortage in the nation we talked about data analytics, cyber security. >> absolutely. >> computer science. can we create new pipelines for computer science. we sat down with companies in seattle. amazon and others. and then we took students who finished a b.s. degree and they give them long-term co-ops, those internships. and we gave them a masters in computer science over the period where they are there. now, those students are coming with a background in physics, a background in math, a background in economics.

for us we have to relearn. so a masters in x doesn't require a b.a. in the same field. so it's a learning process for higher education. i agree with you, wes. we have the best educational system in the nation. because we have it, we cannot be complacent. >> i think there is another dimension to this, too, that goes to the heart of the pace of the technology and the pace of business growth that we all expect to see and want to the see as we go forward. and that's around innovation and the way we approach that from an educational perspective. long gone are the days when innovation was the product of single individuals. most enterprises today, i think this occurs in universities as well, innovation is the products of groups of people, groups of people coming together. one thing that universities have been doing well for some period

of time is working hard to develop that teamwork approach as students come through university. but as we see folks progress into business and into the work environment, oftentimes the discipline within which they were educated becomes the stove pipe which they want to work. i know in our company and many companies like ours innovation is occurring within the boundaries. as we move forward, that's only going to accelerate. what better place for people to learn that opportunity and engage in that way than in universities. in fact, universities are leading the way in many respects in the way they do research but bringing with that the way

they teach and the way they engage in the innovative eco system that needs to get created both within universities and companies. i think another opportunity is still before us. >> i agree. my colleagues talked about the importance of fundamental research. and we all believe in that. that is also in addition to the aspect we have to be aware of. when we look at research in higher education, the most important factor in this research is the doctoral student. the people who are going for a phd. now, you know how we evaluate the programs, the ph.d. programs in higher education, by the number of ph.d. students placed in research universities. so if i place one of my ph.d. students at your company -- >> i like it. >> you like it, but it's not you as plus, which is insane. so we need to start thinking

beyond that. we also need to -- there are things -- all the innovation as you said is happening at the intersection. the intersection of not only disciplines but the intersection of what is happening in universities and what is happening in tech companies like yours. so why don't we start thinking about what we call experiential phd programs, where we have co-directors. >> yes. >> you have first rate researchers. we have first rate researchers that can come together. co-direct. let me go a step further. how many universities have companies that have labs imbedded in those universities. very few. we don't have good protocols for that. we can do it. so those partnerships that we are talking about excite us a lot. but also at the same time we need to start doing more in

order to be comfortable with each other. >> we do. >> it is is not enough to talk about the need for partnerships. we need to find a way to make it the default case. where now it is the exception. i want to ask you about something else. you came to northeastern. you talked to the students, you talked to the faculty, you talked to the staff, the community. you spent 10 minutes talking about diversity and inclusion. it is a dimension that is very important for you and the workforce. tell us why. >> it is certainly something we have seen in action in our company. if you think about the work that we do, we are a company of 65,000 people. about half of our employees are degreed scientists, engineers, mathematicians, technologists of some form or another. the language is innovation, change and how do you look at problems through different lenses.

we do best and we measure this. we can see it in our company. we do best when our teams are diverse, when our teams are operating in a very inclusive environment, where all the ideas are freely put on the table. and when there's a high regard not only for all the individuals on a personal basis but a high regard for the way in which everyone can work together and get things done. this is not theoretical for us. this is tangible. it is a powerful outcome for us. so there is a strong, strong focus within our company to not only talk about this from the top levels of the organization. we measure it. we measure it across our enterprise, and we see the tangible benefits from it. so is i'm a strong proponent for the benefit, the business benefit of really working to make sure we are doing the right things in diversity and inclusion. and when it comes to recruiting the graduates, as we were saying, are incredibly smart. and we find that they tend to look for environments that are

far more in -- inclusive that give them the comfort that they are going to be able to put on the table. their ideas, their views and to be who they are. >> another thing to discuss. the pipeline is not sufficient. we have to work together to increase this pipeline in k-12 by looking also community colleges. by looking at historically black colleges and putting partnerships together. we haven't done enough of that. so this mandate is going to force us in higher education and in industry to work together to increase. >> absolutely. >> this is something that is very exciting. frankly it hasn't been done enough yet. we have examples. but that's an opportunity. now, you and i discussed cultural agility. we need people who are consult

really agile, at ease with not only different cultures in the united states but also on a global scale. how do you look at that? i see. >> i see just a as i talked about, diversity. understanding a more global view and being comfortable operating around the globe is a key part of the success of any modern enterprise. and you might say, well, a defense company isn't that primarily domestic focus? no. most of the companies in our industry are global companies of necessity. we operate with our allies around the globe. when you're talking about national security, that's a very sovereign local perspective oftentimes. really being comfortable operating on a global basis is critical. that's why universities that bring that view i think have a leg up.

the universities that really encourage their students to engage in that more global perspective and to learn to have some meaningful learning in that regard. whether it's the intersections with students on the campus for the international opportunities that are afforded to them. it's a great thing about your co-op program, that you afford your co-op students not just in the u.s. but around the globe. and i think it really does produce graduates who step into the workforce with a broader perspective than they might otherwise have. >> you know, from this perspective, we have over 5 million students in colleges and universities. if i tell you how many go overseas, have an overseas experience is less than 500,000. so we have a deficit and we have an opportunity there. we have an opportunity to give our students -- and actually we have an obligation to give our students a global experience, because we are working and competing on a global level.

>> absolutely we are. >> as a matter of fact, let me give you an example of ge. if by the age of 26 you don't have global experience, it is going to be very difficult for you to grow. so imagine the situation where they are coming -- they finish by the age of 24. you know, they have a masters or more. then they go to work. they don't have a global experience. so what happens? that's a deficit. we need to work on that. that's why wes and i are very excited about being together and building those partnerships and those opportunities. i want to the address one more item. when we look at talents, one of the issues is obviously talent retention. how do you build talent retention? >> so it is a challenge. in today's environment where there are skills shortages, as we said earlier, in particular fields. whether we're talking about those who are great computer scientists or data analysts or

talking in the world of artificial intelligence, a whole variety. there is extreme competition. and what we have found, i can speak broadly for our industry, is that companies that are able to connect the mission of the enterprise to the work that the employees are doing are far more successful than others where it is a job. clearly in our space, national security, global security is a mission that appeals to many. we generally find if we can keep our new hires the first few years, they tend to the stay with us for a career. sometimes that means staying in our industry. people move around within the industry, and that's fine. but it is that deep connection to the a view that what you are doing is meaningful. and we find in interviewing on campus that students really want to understand that as much as they do the particulars of the job that you might be speaking to them about.

they also are looking for companies that have a view of their corporate responsibility. and i enjoy getting out and interviewing students on campus and have been pleasantly surprised by the number of students who have actually looked to see do you have a corporate social responsibility report and what does it say. that's just a broader view many young people are bringing to their career decisions than at the time i graduated from college. >> there is another dimension -- i agree 100% with what you said. when you talk to the students, there is a clear need that is there. another dimensions, is the company investing in me, because i know i have to invest in the company. that's where the lifelong learning is important. we work with ibm. here, india, china to train executives. what do they see? why are they doing it?

it grows fidelity to the place. retention increases. you see, we are now in a situation where higher education has an enormous opportunity to move into lifelong learning. but once we move into lifelong learning. but once we move into lifelong learning, we have to do it with you. we cannot be oblivious of reality. we have been oblivious of reality because we have been so good. we can't afford to remain. olivious -- oblivious. last word for you. >> business, step up. we have a responsibility to higher education. we need to see we are part of the solution. we can no longer stand on the sidelines and criticize the outcomes. we have a responsibility to take a role in creating the products we need to make sure our economy is going to be successful. >> great. thank you very much. thank you. thank you, wes. [ applause ].

>> america's most precious resource is its people. they are the risk takers, entrepreneurs, and innovators. how can we unleash this true american strength in order to grow the economy and create new products, services, industries and jobs. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, nounder and partner revolution llc and founder and chief executive officer america online, mr. steve case, president of carnegie mellon university, subra suresh and chairman and ceo mr. jim phillips. >> well, hello. we're the last guys. >> thanks for hanging in there. >> thanks for hanging in there for us. we're going to be talking about entrepreneurs and i've certainly got entrepreneurs here and two distinguished panelists.

obviously sitting at the end, this guy is best known for the careers of tom hanks and meg ryan. and "you've got mail." and he founded a company called aol that did actually real well. this man has been the former president of the national science foundation and did a phenomenal job. everybody knows that. now the president of carnegie mellon. we have one of the top people in i.t. in history with one of the top material scientists in the world. so this is going to be a lot of fun. i want to get it started. this is a great time to be alive. it is a great time to be here with you. we're in a very unusual time. everybody remembers when the patent officer in the turn of the century, the guy that said, everything that's going to be invented has been invented. might as well close the patent office. in the '70s, what most people don't know, the guy run the patent office at that time said more will be invented in the next 100 years than in the history of mankind. now everybody says more will be invented in the next five years

than in the history of mankind. we have been hearing that all day, because basically all this is caused by vision in certainly our lifetime and last four years of four things. the chip, software, storage, and internet. and then all day long we've got to hear about all the incredible new things coming at us as full speed, like ai, robots, nanotechnology, big data, genomics, 3d printing, avatar intelligence agents, and things like that. a lot of things that may at the end of the day even capture jobs. so my first question is a really tough one at the end of the day as we sum up a few things and go down a different path, i want to ask the distinguished panelist with me, are humans inventing themselves out of work?

>> so i think the answer to the question is going to depend on whether the kinds of jobs that are being created with ai and machine learning and big data, et cetera, when they are replaced by machines, they are going to be -- are there going to be newer jobs for people to create new robots, servicing the robots, writing software and how many of those new jobs will be created vis-a-vis the number of jobs we lose. those are going to be very different kinds of jobs. and i think that's going to be the question. the world economic forum is right in the middle of a number of future councils. looking at 2020 near-term, 2030 midterm and 2050 as a long-term, what kind of displacements will take. i think another way to look at

this would be slightly different question than this other than the number of jobs, which is only a crystal ball at this point. with all the technology that we have and if you believe in the so-called what we are supposed to be in the middle of the early stage of the fourth industry of revolution, which by definition is the convergence of the cyber world, the physical world and the biological world. what are going to be the consequences of this compared to all the innovations that we created in the 20th century. in 2000, the national academy of engineering came up with a report on the 20 greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century. three years later nae published the 14 grand challenges of the 21st century. if you put them side by side, you can't help but wonder some

of the grand challenges are a direct consequence of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. containing -- securing cyberspace, containing nuclear terror, et cetera, et cetera. every major innovation we create, there are intended benefits, unintended consequences and willful abuse of technology. so the question would be, with things like artificial intelligence and machine learning and robotics, et cetera, how do we address the human condition in concert with the development of the technology. some would argue that the reason for the 14 grand challenges of the 21st century from the 20 greatest achievements of the 20th century was because we did not pay attention to the intersection of the technology with the human condition. so i think one of the things we may want to look at is what is

it that we did not do in the last century we need to do in this new technologies that will avoid the problems that we created. >> i agree with that. i just want to add a couple of things. first, it's inevitable the new technologies will destroy some jobs. whether ai, driverless cars, what have you. the challenge is how do you balance that with pushing new ideas forward to create new jobs. 200 years ago, over 90% of us work on farms, now 2%. 88% didn't lose their jobs. we kind of went from agriculture to the industrial to the digital revolution that created new jobs. how do we continue to create new kinds of jobs. i don't believe we'll be successful in doing that. i don't believe we'll have a competitive nation. i don't believe we are the most innovative entrepreneurial nation if we continue what we are doing, which is basically

only investing and backing a few people in a few places. last year, 76% of venture capital went to california, new york, massachusetts. if you look at the states that donald trump won, 30 states, add them up, all 30 went to three states, 10%. so when people felt like they were left behind, they have been left behind and left out. the majority of new jobs comes from high growth startups. we're only investing in a few places, we're not going to have an evenly dispersed economy. we're not going to have a lot of shots on goal. some will surprise us and not just focus on tech partnership but baltimore, chipotle in denver. all kinds of companies have broken through. we need to level the playing field so everybody everywhere has a shot at the american dream. that's the best way to maximize the odds that we are creating new jobs more than we are destroying.

it's not just about place, by the way, but people. last year 90% of venture capital went to men. 10% went to women. 1% went to african-americans. 1% went to latinos. so we just have to move forward and try to make sure we are supporting entrepreneurs with ideas in a lot of different sectors. not just tech sectors. a lot of different sectors. a lot of different places. and that will i think maximize the odds of getting this right. and also in the process lift up some of the communities that are struggling. that are feeling kind of left behind. >> steve, stick with you. you have this new book that is a new york best seller, the third wave. that captured a little bit of it. so are we doing the right things to get the technology to the entrepreneurs, or is there just a gross shortage like we have heard in here before the council of competitiveness of entrepreneurs. maybe a third question to add to that, since you're very involved in this, is kind you teach entrepreneurs?

can you create entrepreneurs? there seems to be an abundance of technology right now. >> i think there's a lot of ideas. out there. opportunity that not been broadly disbursed. it goes back to leveling the playing field. it took me a lot of years to get around to writing a book. i was 58. i realized working last year, including doing some of this, rise of the cities, pittsburgh understanding what's happening and startup communities. something fundamentally different was happening, innovation, entrepreneurship, technology, internet was shifting. it took me a while to figure it out. the basic thesis, the first was building the internet, getting everybody connected. when we started aol 31 years ago, 30% of people were online

one hour a week. we had to build the on ramps. a lot of companies participate. in the 80s, nobody knew about the internet or frankly cared about it. the end of that first wave in 2000 everybody knew about it and couldn't live without it. that set the stage for the second wave, building software on top of the internet, facebook, twitter, snap chat. basically this app economy, mostly the first wave pcs. the second waves shifted to smart phones. basically about software, viral adoption of software. what is happening with a third wave which is now beginning to accelerate is integrating the internet in seamless and pervasive, sometimes even invisible ways throughout our lives and change how we think about health care and learning and food and moving around and energy and other kinds of things. these sectors change a little bit in the first wave, a little bit more in the second wave. not that much. but it will change a lot in the third wave.

that will happen in different places than most people think. it will require a different mind-set for both entrepreneurs and ceos of large companies. partnerships are going to become much more important. it's going to require much more ebb gaugement with governments. these are regulated sectors so policy will become important. and these are hard problems. perseverance is important. i talk about the three ps. it will be much more important. partnerships were not that big a deal in the second wave. facebook didn't need partners. policy wasn't important in the second wave. until you got big and had this global platform, it wasn't that big a factor. perseverance, facebook and snapchat were overnight successes. it's going to shift. big companies partnering with small companies will ab defining characteristic of this third wave. the folks on small company and big company side will be right. the leaders in the country that get that right will rise.

not saying silicon valley will fall. it is perfectly positioned to do well. we will see the rest rise, we will see innovation more disbursed across the country. right now we have too many eggs in a few baskets. and it's risky. >> that leads us into corporate, private, public relationships and everything. but right now we have an incredible country with obviously the best laboratories, the best universities in the world. that leads us into as far as entrepreneurship tech transfer commercialization. you and i had a chance, subra, to testify before congress four or five years ago. you weren't a university president. now you are. and you've got one of the challenges is to do the tech tfr, commercialization. what we have seen coming out of carnegie mellon is unique models of tech transfer commercialization, including one with uber and several others. can you speak to us a little bit about that.

and is that going to be something really good, are the universities going to begin to adopt new models and see more tech transfers commercialization of those great ideas? >> so maybe i'll start with a personal data point. i was a young -- when i started my academic career i was a young assistant professor at an ivy league school for 10 years. during those 10 years, i published quite a bit. during those 10 years i did not have is a single patent. then the next 10 years, after the first 10 years i moved out of the university, well-known university. during those 10 years, i had 21 patents. many were licensed. there was a spin out country that came out of it. i wasn't any different. i wasn't any smarter. i had more opportunities available to me. the scientific work did not change. it's just is the opportunities that were available to me were really different. at carnegie mellon, for example, about 10 years ago there was a change in policy to encourage faculty to publish or at least disclose inventions.

internal we call it 5% and go in peace. within two years, it led to a fourfold increase to a number of closures. brookings institution recently talked about case studies of why some cities that went through a serious economic decline were able to come up, when other cities suffered a similar fate could not reinvent themselves, they chose pittsburgh as an example of a city. and they attributed one factor, this is according to brookings institution. bruce katz did a study on this. and the factor they said was if major research universities exist in a city, they have an opportunity to contribute to the economic revival of the city.

they attribute this to carnegie mellon, the university of pittsburgh. those are examples just in the last seven, eight years google set up shop in pittsburgh. employee number one was professor of computer science who went and started this operation. now it is is one of the largest revenue makers for google anywhere in the world. and now they have several hundred employees. they are tripling the footprint in pittsburgh. we actually got this faculty member who spent 10 years at google back, my dean of computer science. in fact, i joked to senior executives at google that the only reason he's coming back to the university is because we can pay him more than google k so i think it's a two-way process. same with companies like microsoft, uber and others. i think it's a brain circulation of a different kind. rather than losing faculty members from our university to another university, now we lose

them to industry. >> this is going to both of you. we hear a lot about the immigration issue. i know in my company, all of my scientists are immigrants. it's been really tough with the it's been really tough with the visa program and everything else. but talk about that a little bit, steve. you're investing in a lot of companies. how serious of an issue is it? is there a way to get is fixed quick, so we don't send away our einsteins and werner von brauns. after getting their degrees which we pretty much subs died. >> it's a perfect example of rise to rest example. we put data together a couple years ago. the companies formed there, partly because of the expertise carnegie mellon has and the technologies is really quite impressive. and the fact that uber, one of the most iconic silicon valley companies is kind of betting their future on pittsburgh. that's the center of gravity.

for their autonomous vehicle operation. as i traveled in a couple dozen cities in the last year, that story is the case of everyone. my favorite example is a company called magically that's in the augmented reality, virtual reality. $1.4 billion of capital from google in silicon valley from alibaba. in china. where are they located? they aren't in boston, new york, san francisco. they're in fort lauderdale, florida. you're starting to see this. it will accelerate the next decade. to your question, i'm very concerned about this. i worked on some of these issues and president obama has me on a jobs council that jeff shared. i led the effort around the entrepreneurship. we came up with a number of policies. some moved forward. access to capital issues including jobs act, funding, on ramps for ipos. the number one recommendation is taking steps to win a global battle for talent.

and i testified in favor of the senate immigration bill. sadly, it didn't get moved forward. it is obviously not going to move forward in that current construct. we have to the figure out some way to move some components forward. it's not just what they focus on but the startup. the one example i'll leave you with, somebody graduated from wharton, started a company, started to show some momentum. but he couldn't extend his visa, so he's forced to leave. he went home. he happened to be from india. and that company now has 5,000 employees in india. it is worth $5 billion. and he wanted to stay here. and i hear those stories every single day. i think we need him. we heard this today. focus on k-12 education, encouraging people to be more creative. we need to win these.

not just a problem to solve, an opportunity. >> obviously you have run into this many times. we're running a little bit fast on time. >> so let me give an economic argument on immigration. of course i'm biased because i came with a one-way ticket and half a suitcase. >> thanks for staying. >> merely 40 years ago. >> where did you hide out? >> i was in ames, iowa. here is the economic argument i would like to give. it's often overlooked in our conversation on immigration. studies show if a child is born today in the u.s., it costs the parents on average to raise the child from birth to age 22 through college approximately half a million u.s. dollars. $400,000 to $500,000. private school, public school, doesn't matter. that's the average, half a million a child.

let's say 100,000 students who come here, graduate students come here to get an advanced degree. if we make it easier for them to stay here, some other tax payer has already paid half a million dollars each to those 100,000 students. these are the best and the brightest. if we can attract them to keep them here, $100,000 times half a million is $50 billion, seven times the annual budget of the national science foundation. so in the second half of the 20th century, the u.s. has been the undisputed innovation leader because all other countries in the world have been subsidizing our innovation ecosystem, much more than we pay through the u.s. money through the science foundation. there is no substitute for cultivating domestic talent. but if you can cherry pick, pick and choose anyone you want from anywhere in the world to come

here, you can beat anybody in innovation. that's what we have been doing. if we lose that, we will lose the game. this year six americans won the nobel prize. all six got their first degree abroad, all six of them. so that is my response to the immigration question. >> that is pretty convincing for sure. >> i just want to say one thing. we both obviously are passionate about the issue. i don't think we all collectively have done a good job framing the issue. i think this election is a good example. as i said earlier, a lot of people in a lot of places feel left out because they have been left out and left behind. part of the reason globalization, digitalization for them they view as a net negative not a net positive. immigration they view as a net negative because it feels like people are coming and taking their jobs. we have to make the case that if entrepreneur startups are great jobs. we have more people coming here, some of those will be the big companies of tomorrow.

40% of fortune 500 companies, as you know, had at least one immigrant founder. so we have to tell that story. this is about getting people that will create the jobs and lift up the communities. but we need to spread the wealth. the companies are in pittsburgh, des moines, atlanta. not just san francisco, new york, and boston. >> all across the united states. >> this is titled the next wave of american entrepreneurs and everything. so you two will have an incredible perspective on this. it will probably be different. but what do you see? we all grew up through the digital revolution, digital rearchitecture of everything, now we have material science. what do you see as the next big targets of disruption? if you want to get down what we went through with the kodaks of the world or encyclopedia britannica. overnight. are we still on that kind of run or speed, disruption, innovate or die, some real likely targets out there?

>> i would argue, in fact, all this week as you know, "the wall street journal" is has been running a series on innovation. and they interviewed a number of different people. i spent some time with the reporter for "the wall street journal" just a few weeks ago looking at different perspectives. i think the pace of innovation has never been stronger. the kind of students we get today at the universities and colleges, these students are much more entrepreneurial and they want to -- not only entrepreneurial and many more opportunities than, they are equally that entrepreneurial spirit with greater impact in ways their parents and grandparents didn't do, which is wonderful for entrepreneurship. part of our challenge as university leaders is to make sure we are not just training

somebody in how to solve an equation or code a program or do an experiment, but how do adapt and think differently in a complex situation. i think adopting the education, teaching how to learn, is more important than teaching a particular subject. >> very good. >> you mentioned kodak, the story there is to dig into a little bit, the general view is kodak is kind of caught sleeping, digital to photography came out of nowhere. obviously went bankrupt while they were trying to reposition. actually what happened, kodak engineers invented digital photography. it was invented at kodak. but the corporate leaders were not leaning in the future. they're focused on what was there, frankly, the paper business was pretty profitable. it is a reminder to all of us, you have to focus on where things are going, the best way to do that is to partner with entrepreneur, not to try to do everything in-house.

you have a lot of smart people working for you. guess what, smart people work somewhere else. how do you create a network around your company so you're not left behind. you are part of the future, and you're playing offense, not defense. clearly, the companies get larger, i saw this with aol, certainly after time-warner, we did shift from playing offense to defense. you can't do that. i think figuring out how to continue to be nimble and flexible, focusing on where things are going and not just talk about it, but how to execute will be one of the big challenges in the third wave and i think the answer gets back to partnerships. the companies that do partnership will succeed. the ones that try to go it alone will be left behind. >> does that mean small companies that make up about 95% of the new jobs need to partner? is that what you're saying to that extent? >> yes, different, though. >> the '90s are gone, where you up and sell and all that, and so -- >> i know you ran that play a bunch of times. >> yeah, you did too. >> because of the nature of the

sectors. >> it worked out for both of us. >> take health care for example, if you want to revolutionize health care, of course software will be part of it, but it is not dropping an app in the app store. you have to work with doctors and hospitals and health plans. that's going to require partnerships. if you want to do something about re-thinking learning, you have to work with teachers or professors or partner with carnegie melon. so this mentality is all about the app, the software, it has to move into this world where it is about integrating important aspects of your life and partnering with some of the players in that. unless you do that as a small company you may not get traction. if you do that as a big company, you may not stay relevant. both incentive for this dance. >> you know, we've got a minute left. this is a great group here. so i wanted to open it up for just a couple of questions while we are here. anybody? yes, sir, in the back?

[ inaudible question ] [ inaudible question ] >> -- looking at those types apprenticeship programs and re-establishing those, and providing that as a foundation for doing innovation, because unless you're working, you're not going to create a better way to do that thing unless you have the foundation. >> i agree. i think that would be a great way for larger companies again, how do you figure out a way to be a magnet for people with ideas, young people in with different per suspect i was. a bunch of different ways to do that, as i said earlier. one way would be apprenticeships, companies are trying that and that will

accelerate in the next decade. >> we see that all the time with our starting in the freshman year, the number of companies that come to attract students to go work for them. in fact, companies like pricewaterhouse cooper is hiring civil engineers. i mean, connections that you would not have thought of just a few years ago as trainees. and this also gives companies an opportunity to choose which students they want to give offers to when they graduate, try them out in different locations. and in fact, some of the students, at the end of the freshman year in our -- in some of our program, they have multiple offers. right at the end of the freshman year. there are lots of opportunities now. on a global scale as well. companies from around the world, coming here attracting students. >> so before we go, maybe as a wrap-up, just what would you like to say or recommend to

entrepreneurs. there's thousands, millions perhaps out there. you both have incredible experience in this area. how would you, just a minute, say? >> i'll be very brief. innovation is a contact sport. and engage in the contact sport and come in contact with as many people, like steve, who have succeeded, and as many people you can find who have failed, but tried very hard. >> two things. building on that entrepreneurship is a team sport. how do you assemble the right team of people aspect is critical. but recognize, i said earlier in this third wave, the game is changing. and the rules that worked or the playbook that worked in the second wave will not work or will not work as well in the third wave. so things like partnership really internally are hard. it's hard to structure win-win partnerships. it's important. policy is hard and frustrating. of course you don't want to deal with government regulators, of course that will slow you down, but we're going to have some regulations about medical device

safety and drones in the sky and driverless cars on the road. we're going to. so understanding that and leaning into that is important. perseverance is also important. the last one, as i said several times is be more open minded about place. fifty years ago if you wanted to be in the entertainment business you had to go to hollywood. that's not true anymore. you've got all kinds of -- a cottage industries around creation of music, all around the country, all around the world. people are running hedge funds and mutual funds from all around the country, all around the world. we're seeing entrepreneurship regionalize and globalize and trying to figure out where you should start the company, maybe because a partner is there. something around some of the work that carnegie miller and pittsburgh does around building things, robotics, things you care about. agriculture technology, st. louis, opportunities in the

third wave are unbelievable. these are actually the most important things in terms of our life, some of the biggest sectors of our economy, so it is game on, but you have to adopt this different mind set. >> well, thanks. we definitely had two great panelists, and thank you for being here, and thank you, council, and thank you for putting this on. >> happy 30th anniversary. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back the president and ceo of the u.s. council on competitiveness, the honorable deborah wince-smith. >> wow, what a great day. thank you all for being with us on behalf of the council's executive committee, i want to formally thank all the council

members, our speakers, our sponsors, the fantastic council staff that have worked very, very hard to put on our gala dinner last night and this very special national competitive forum, as we celebrate our 30th anniversary, but importantly, begin today the journey started today to craft the next chapter in the council's journey to make america more prosperous and competitive. i think we heard throughout the day, there is no crystal ball on where our country is going to be in the years ahead. but a few power themes really emerged through the discussions. i just thought i would capture a few that we talked a lot about change, but we also talked about continuity. we talked about the collision and convergence of the scientific and technological revolutions and how they'll transform our lives and create new products and services and tremendous value.

we talked a lot about connecting, collaborating, competing and coalescing around big initiatives to do big, important things for our country. we talked about how to co-create, construct and capture the value of our innovation capacity in america. and very importantly, all of our speakers in one way or the other really came down to addressing this challenge of how we can create together a new connected community of caring concerned citizens who are all part of the competitiveness journey. for inclusive prosperity. so again, i want to thank all of you for being with us. our clarion call for competitiveness will be the new strategy for the new president-elect.

we urge you to take it back to your states and cities and regions, and promulgate this and very much welcome you to be part of the next chapter in our competitiveness journey. thank you so much for being with us. [ applause ] this week on c-span in prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, president barack obama and japanese prime minister shinzo abe visit the american naval base at pearl harbor. mr. abe is the first sitting japanese leader to visit the site of the attack that launched u.s. involvement in world war ii. wednesday night beginning at 8:00 a review of house and senate hearings from 2016 on topics including flint, michigan, water crisis and wells fargo unauthorized account stanley. >> seriously? you found out that one of your divisions had created 2 million fake accounts, had fired

thousands of employees for improper behavior and had cheated thousands of your own customers and you didn't even once consider firing her ahead of her retirement? >> thursday 8:00 p.m. eastern we remember some of the political figures that passed away in 2016 including former first lady nancy reagan and supreme court justice antonin scalia. friday night at 8:00, our in memoriam continues with shammon perez, muhammad ali and former senator and astronaut john glenn this week in prime time on c-sp c-span. >> sunday, in-depth will feature a live discussion on presidency of barack obama. we're taking your phone calls, tweets, e-mails and facebook questions during the program. our panel includes april ryan, white house correspondent for american urban radio networks and author of press daebs in black and white, up close view of three presidents and race in america.

princeton university professor eddie glaude, how race enslaves american soul. associate editor of the "washington post," david maranis. watch sunday on book tv on c-span2. c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought today by cable and satellite provider. >> the brookings institution host add discussion recently on criminal justice and civil rights under the obama administration. the panel was made up of administration officials who reflected on their work and addressed questions about what they thought still needs to be done. this is an hour and a half.