Hi everybody. My name is Kevin Carey. I'm the Vice President of Education Policy and Knowledge Management at New America. Thank you so much for coming to today's event about David Whitman's magnificent new book, Profits of Failure. If you pay any attention to higher education in this country, particularly the parts of higher education that aren't the very elite schools you know that far too often, students are exploited by the colleges that they choose to attend. And the problem with kind of focusing on what you see in front of you in the here and now is that it's often difficult to really see the big picture.  But it's really hard to see the whole sweep of history. In fact, it's never been told before in before David's book. This is really the first time that anyone has looked at the entire expanse of the way American higher education chooses to finance and regulate higher education and the consistent pattern of the failures of those policies and the real incredible human costs that those failures have created. It's a book that will make you angry, if you read it, but it'll make you angry in a good kind of way in the sense that it will also give you hope that the failures of the past, don't have to be repeated. Going forward in the future, particularly now that I think we have some opportunities to not just correct problems that we've correct mistakes we've made but actually build a better architecture for all students and all institutions. We're thrilled to have David and a fantastic group of panelists here to discuss this book, including former Secretary of Education already Duncan. I'm very grateful to all of you for joining us here in this virtual event. And now I'm going to turn it over to my friend and colleague Bob Sharman at the Century Foundation. Thank you Kevin and hello to everyone who has tuned in. Thank you for joining us today for the premiere of the profits of failure for profit colleges and the closing of the conservative mind by David Whitman. I'm Bob Sharman, the higher education program director at the Century Foundation, which is co-sponsoring this event with New America. A special thanks to Danielle Douglas Gabriel, National Higher Education reporter at the Washington Post, who will be moderating today's discussion after some opening remarks by the book's author. So joining in that discussion in addition to Arnie Duncan will be Antonette Flores, managing director for post-secondary education at the Center for American Progress. I first met David Whitman in 2009 when I joined the Department of Education where he was serving as Arnie's speechwriter. We never formally worked together on the issue of for profit colleges, but I remember a hallway discussion where David was telling me about the fact that he had attended a for profit school to get his massage therapy training and license. David had had a good experience. So we talked about the importance of figuring out how to set up guardrails that allow federal aid to for profit schools, but to prevent those schools from using that federal stamp of approval in a way that hurt consumers. Well, little did I know that that little spark that conversation would grow into the most comprehensive history of US for profit education ever compiled the book that we are discussing today. Before preparing for this webinar, I did not know what David had done before he was serving as Arnie's speechwriter. He had had a long career as a senior writer at US News and World Report. Before that his first job out of college was to draft public policy case studies for the Kennedy School at Harvard. Building on that skill, we now have a giant case study of the regulation of for profit colleges. I present journalist speechwriter historian and now book author David Whitman. Are you unmuted David. Okay, there we go. You can hear me now. We can hear you now. Okay, great. Thanks to Bob and Kevin for those extraordinarily generous introductions. And to New America and the Century Foundation for co-sponsoring their lease of my book and this webinar. There are a lot of folks listening today who are very well versed on the subject of for profit colleges. But I want to start by briefly talking to those of you who are not experts on the subject. The obvious question to start with is this. Why is the seemingly eye glazing subject of the history of for profit college regulation, not only important, but surprising. Most Americans know little or nothing about for profit colleges. That's because the for profit sector has long been the Rodney danger field of higher education, it's the sector that just can't get no respect. Parents may dream of sending their child to an Ivy League college, the flagship research university in their home state, maybe they're on a moderate. They don't dream of sending their child to a for profit university. In 2020, just one in three Americans thought that for profit colleges are quote for people like me, former House Speaker john Boehner who was a big booster for profit colleges, lamented that for profit colleges are second class citizens in the world of higher education. Those popular prejudices are both mistaken and short sighted, because the fate of for profit colleges, and how the government chooses to regulate them is surprisingly consequential for millions of Americans. Each year, good for profit colleges successfully train tens of thousands of students to take jobs as medical assistants, cosmologists, business administrators registered nurses, HVAC technicians, jobs that can change the trajectory of students and their families for years to come. But each year, bad for profit colleges leave hundreds of thousands of students with no job and steep debts, and they can ruin or mar the lives of students and their families for years to come. And because career colleges are heavily subsidized by the federal government through the federal student aid program. Government regulation for profit institutions helps determine the return and effectiveness of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. So, like it or not, everyone on this webinar today is helping to fund for profit colleges, and the more than one million students who attend them today. Now, this public ignorance and indifference to for profit colleges is compounded by the fact that the adults who attend them are among America's most vulnerable and neglected students. Next slide. They are single moms, disadvantaged adults, veterans, minority students and displaced workers. Students are doing all the right things. They are enrolling in for profit colleges to get new and better paid jobs, and they're trying to improve the lives, their lives and those of their family.  The majority of students at for profit colleges are minority students. How students fare at for profit colleges is very much a test, both of social justice and of racial equity. Now that's, that's why taxpayers that's why the person in the street should care about for profit colleges. To compare it to what people see on the news. The worst outrage in higher education today is not the operation or city blues scandal. This was the scandal in which Hollywood actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin along with 30 other wealthy parents were charged with cheating on the kids admissions test or bribing their way to get their kids in the selective colleges. And I don't defend what those parents did for a moment. But the worst scandal in higher education today, far and away is the subpar education, the hundreds of thousands of non traditional students and low income adults receive a mediocre for profit schools. In the college admissions bribery scandal, about 50 people were charged with conspiracy to commit fraud between 2011 and 2018. By contrast, since 2016, more than 315,000 students have filed claims to have their federal student loans forgiven, because they say their for profit college defrauded them. Now before turning to the book, I want to just add a brief personal note. During the nearly six years when I was the speechwriter for Secretary of Education Aaron Duncan in the Obama administration. I wrote about many subjects for Arnie, but for profit colleges was not among. And yet I watched the regulatory debates about for profit schools from a distance with keen interest for a couple of reasons. I started my career as a journalist way back when that US News and World Report in 1985. During the second term of Ronald Reagan, I covered social policy and I interviewed Reagan's then Secretary of Education Bill Bennett. Bill Bennett was a ferocious critic of for profit schools. Next slide. So when the Obama administration started regulating his career education schools. I was surprised that many conservatives had completely forgotten Republicans traditional support for accountability measures at for profit schools, and that they didn't even realize. They were taking the same position with the Democrats who had opposed Bill Bennett in the 1980s, folks like Senator had Kennedy and Paul Simon. Now there was one other more personal reason I kept tabs from a distance on the regulation before profit sectors Bob mentioned as part of a mid career transition out of journalism before I went to the department. I got enrolled in a for profit massage therapy school. I earned my certificate, I got licensed and certified, and I worked part time as a therapist at an area spot. I had a good experience that my massage therapy school, and I knew firsthand the virtues of a good for profit school. I was the only relatively senior political pointy in the education department who had ever earned a certificate at a for profit school. So with all of that as an introduction I want to take a few minutes just to lay out the three main themes and findings of my research in my book. The first of these three overarching patterns of history is that federal regulation of for profit schools consistently follows the same. Identical cycle. Next slide. In this cycle is driven by the federal government making new dollars new pots of money available before profit school, which spurs abuses and propels the need for new regulation law, the strength and consumer protection. Identical cycle occurred in the 1940s, after the passage of the World War two GI Bill, and it took place again in the mid 1970s. The latter half of the 1980s, early 1990s, and from about 2006 until today, the second overarching pattern of history is that there are three what I call unofficial laws of for profit college regulation that one can deduce from history. Next slide. The first law of for profit college regulation is that good money spawns bad practices, and that's particularly case for easy one federal money with fewer no strings attached to it. Since the World War two GI Bill, the federal government has opened up pots of money before profit colleges on 12 occasions. I described in detail in my book, those 12 turning points. And I'm not going to list them here, but each time that led to a rapid growth in the for profit sector and new abuses. The second law of for profit college regulation is this. Any law or regulation to curb competitive access to federal revenues will create an equal counteraction to circumvent it so as to increase competitive advantage. That is why for profit regulation has been riddled with big infamous loopholes for 75 years. And the third law of for profit regulation is that industry opposition to performance measures are inversely related to a regulations effectiveness of measuring a given programs performance. So the more accurate and specific performance measure of a given program, the more it will face industry opposition. Firstly, the more general performance measure is easier is the game, the more likely it will be that it will run or industry support. Now there's one last big bucket of history here of lessons learned about potential policy remedies for protecting consumers. Conservatives today espoused to main remedies for abuses in the for profit sector. Federalism devolving more power to the states and private accrediting agencies on the theory that states and accreditors are better situated to regulate quality in the schools they oversee than a distant federal government. The second remedy and really this is the one that's most favored by conservatives and industry is relying on the market to correct abuses in the for profit sector. This is a very approach of Secretary Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration, which argued that if you provide consumers with information on something known as the college scorecard website. Provide them information about the earnings and debt of former students in the program. The invisible hand of the market will do the rest. Students will flock to programs with good records of placing graduates and jobs that pay a living wage. They won't apply to the lousy programs with poor job placement records that leave students deep in debt. And the market would effectively force programs to close that prepared students for jobs and fields in which there were already vast labor services. And programs to look better than their competitors would carefully screen out under prepared students who had little chance of succeeding. So that's, that's the classic exposition of free market theory. What's surprising is that advocates of market based accountability, and this includes former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos are surprisingly ignorant of basic elements of free market theory, and the actual operation of educational markets. And that's despite the fact that the big believers in educational choice and competition. This match here starts with the fact that for profit colleges, don't at all function in a traditional free market. In fact, the for profit sector is actually a textbook example of market failure. And when markets fail, that's precisely the situation where they need government regulation to protect consumers. So why is the for profit sector and illustration of market failure. Next slide. First, because it suffers from what economists call asymmetric information. And that's a fancy way of saying that the sellers in this case, the for profit colleges know much more about their product than the buyers, the students. The consumer is at a huge disadvantage because they have very little opportunity to sample and compare the educational product in places that the for profit college is often for profit colleges also have a third party payer. Their students get scholarships in the form of programs or the most cases students borrow the money to pay for their program by taking out student loans from the federal government. But either way, the federal government is the third party payer it's paying the bill, so long as the student is enrolled. So as a result, there are no competitive pressures to lower prices or improve the quality of programs. There is no invisible hand of competition. All the federal government does before it sends out checks to the for profit college is to check if the student qualifies for a higher education market. Normally, education markets themselves are different. Higher education is what's known as a trust market. And a functioning competitive market, the buyers make repeat purchases and can meaningfully comparison shop. So if there are two grocery markets a block apart, you can over time, figure out who is the best prices and products for you. Education isn't like that. It's a one time purchase, and you may not know until years afterwards, whether your program was a good program and a good deal. Now unfortunately, conservatives and Republican lawmakers today have completely abandoned the idea of holding for profit schools, accountable for meeting even minimum student outcomes with the use of federal dollars. Next slide and conservatives have taken this position in large measure, I believe, because they are wedded to the ideological belief that the market will adequately protect consumers and do so better than the government. And that's even in markets that are riddled with perverse incentives to cut corners in educating students. So here's how extreme the abandonment of accountability by conservatives is today. Secretary DeVos rescinded the Obama administration's gainful employment, which required career programs, not to saddle students with unaffordable federal student loan debts. It is now possible for a career education school that zero graduates, zero students placed in jobs in the field of training and have every one of the graduates deep in debt. But still, the federal gravy train will keep flowing to that school. So now I want to switch gears for a moment and briefly detail the cycle of regulation scandal that I referred to earlier. I liken this cycle to the five stages of regulation scandal through a version of Elizabeth Kubler Ross's five stages of grief. So the five stages are exposure, outrage, action, denial, and acceptance. In the exposure stage, generous federal aid programs for veterans and other students fuel rapid growth at for profit schools. That prompts news outlets to publish exposés of deceptive and predatory recruiting practices by school salespeople who were available, unqualified students in the signing up for student loans. Stage two is outrage. Congress appoints a select committee to examine the abuses chronicled the news accounts invariably commissions the government accountability office to examine for profit abuses and the waste of government dollars. Stage three is action, the newspaper exposés the congressional investigations spotlight the inadequacy of federal and state safeguards, and that sets off new efforts by the administration and Congress to curb the abuses. At the same time, one or more of the era's largest for profit change goes into bankruptcy. Stage four is denied. The for profit industry claims it has been unfairly targeted for the abuses of a few bad apples. It launches a furious counterattack in Congress and the courts against the new regulations. Stage five is acceptance. New federal legislation and regulation shrink the for profit industry temporarily. The years of the industry pledge the battle days will never return. There's time passes without wholesale flagrant abuses reappearing. Congress and the administration loosen the purse strings on federal funding and the whole cycle of scandal and regulation starts all over again. Let me give some specific examples of this cycle. Many people think of the World War two GI bill as landmark legislation. And in many ways it was. But contrary to popular war the educational component of the GI bill wasn't just about sending GI's on master college for the first time. Next slide. This is a surprising fact more GI's use their educational benefits to attend for profit trade schools that enrolled in four year colleges and universities. The GI bill fueled a stunning explosion in for profit schools, eager to corner these new federal dollars. 18 months of the passage of the 1944 GI bill, more than 2100 new for profit schools popped up. That's an average of four new profit for profit schools per day. The 1948 colliers magazine reported that the educational provisions of the GI bill that squandered at least half a billion dollars. So porting what crew, in many instances, and I quote, to be the greatest boondoggle of all time. They're using their GI bill benefits to become amateur piccolo players horseback riders, and to learn the fine art of chicken sexing, so they could distinguish male from female chicks. Here, the colliers article here, Homer Ramey, a Republican lawmaker from Ohio wrote his own article for colliers and complained that for profit owners that established new school that quote milk the federal treasury of the taxpayers funds without giving any worthwhile return. Several years later, a select congressional committee followed up by completing the first of a half dozen committee investigations that would follow in coming decades. Next slide. It's 222 page report found that exploitation by private schools has been widespread, and that hundreds of millions of dollars have been frittered away on worthless training. There was no examination that same year, 1952, but more than 640 for profit schools from the two thirds of them use questionable advertising recruiting and billing practices, and then only about 20% of veterans who took courses at the school, even completed their courses. It's been forward about 20 years and the Texas Attorney General is testifying the congressional hearings that Congress is 1952 report on for profit abuses mirrors with quote disquieting exactly the findings made here today. This is the first time when a new select congressional committee held hearings on for profit schools in 1974. It's opening to witnesses were actually Republican congressman in California were furious about for profit schools, ripping off their constituents in the Los Angeles area. Next slide. The Republican congressman warned his fellow lawmakers that they were dealing with a quote national scandal of multi million dollars of portions. The second Republican congressman urged his colleagues to do something to rid ourselves from this curse. A few months later, the Republican whip in the house, the public within the house was then Congressman Bob Michael of Illinois, took to the floor to warn lawmakers about for profit abuses and language that could have been ripped from the pages of pollyers 1948 magazine report. He said that bad for profit schools were running a con game of immense proportions involving huge sums of money when pieced together that amounts to one of the most gigantic ripoffs in the country. There was a GAO report in that era too. It found that 75% of veterans failed to complete their correspondence courses, and only 6% found gainful employment in their field of training. I could go on and cite virtually identical findings from investigative news reports, congressional committees, the GAO from federal officials in the 80s and early 1990s from the last decade. We obviously don't have time today to review all that history. But I assure you, it's a carbon copy of earlier years. We'll scratch the surface about outrageous recruiting abuses over the last 75 years. Next slide for profit schools have recruited and enrolled individuals at homeless shelters, halfway houses for institutionalized mental patients, county jails, drug rehab centers, public housing projects, welfare offices that cater to seasonal migratory farm workers and service and servicemen that oversees army barracks, including signing up veterans with traumatic brain injuries who didn't know what course they were taking. Perhaps the biggest outrage was what is known as Greyhound therapy. In 1989, the Houston Chronicle discovered that two local for-profit schools were actually busing the homeless from shelters in Dallas, San Antonio and New Orleans to Houston to sign them up for student aid. While they were on the bus, the homeless men and women signed their student loan commissory notes. And the Houston School dumped the homeless back into shelters and cheap hotels until the schools received their loan money. So you can't read the history of regulation and scandal and walk away thinking that the problems of the sector are just the problems of a rare bad apple. Next slide. The problems and abuses are far more systemic than that and are driven by the perverse economic incentives that for-profit schools have to cut corners in educating students to generate more profits. Consistently, there are three big problems that are far more common in the for-profit sector than anywhere else in higher education. Next slide. For-profit schools, first, are far more likely than other schools to close abruptly, leaving their students stranded midstream in their studies and often with no other program to which they can transfer. Second, they're far more likely to engage in deceptive advertising, boiler room recruiting tactics, and fraudulent misrepresentation than other schools. And finally, they are far more likely to leave their students saddled with unaffordable debt for worthless degrees. So, how should federal officials and lawmakers address the problems in the sector? The last chapter in the book lays out a series of actions that would better protect consumers. I'm not going to get down in the policy weeds here except to make one last point. For most of the last two decades, conservatives and industry spokespersons have maintained that the primary guiding role of federal regulation should be to treat all sectors of higher education equal to create a level playing field for all institutions. Well, that sounds like a goal that everyone should support, but even a little bit of forethought would show that it's a kind of faux equity standard. No matter what the Supreme Court says, corporations are not people, and for profit colleges are not students. It is critical that students and subgroups of students be treated equitably, but not that institutions be regulated in a uniform manner. In fact, it's impossible to create a level playing field in higher education regulation without rewriting vast swaths of the tax code securities law and consumer protection statute. Because the law already draws far ranging distinction between for profit and nonprofit energies. But even if the law treated all colleges and universities identically. Differential regulation for very different college sectors with different missions makes sense. In this country, we regulate trucks and cars very differently. Even though both are motor vehicles trucks are regulated differently because they are inherently less fuel efficient and they present different safety problems in cars. And the same is true for for profit and nonprofit colleges. And so to those of you in the policy world, I would urge you to stop treating universal regulation of all institutions as a kind of holy grail for higher education regulation. It's not. And with that, I'd like to turn this over to Danielle for discussion. Thank you, David. Thank you so much for having me here. And thank you for this very thorough book and explanation history of the for profit sector and regulation. So David, you document the long history of regulations designed to clean up abuses in the for profit college sector, and how those efforts are undermined. What historical examples of that cycle do you find most instructive in forging ahead with regulation today. Great question. There are three laws or regulations that I think work to curb abuses. One with the 1952 Korean War GI bill which ended direct tuition payments to schools, and those stopped for the next year and a half a century. They didn't come back until 2008 and the 911 GI Bill and as soon as I came back and saw the explosion of abuses of veterans by for profit schools. The second effective regulation with the 1992 higher education act amendments, which barred schools with high default rates from receiving federal student aid. The Obama administration's 2014 gainful employment rule, which had a big preemptive impact in getting for profit programs to close their worst programs, even though Trump administration eliminated rule before it actually took effect. Now all three of those successful laws and regulations had some common ingredients. The most important was that they dramatically altered the reverse incentives in the for profit sector that undermine providing equality education. All three of the right those regulations are laws were hard to game, at least initially although colleges eventually figured out how to game the 1992 over default regulations. What's fortunate Danielle is that it's what's far more common are ineffective laws and regulations. And those are really the mirror image of effective law and regulations of ineffective law and regulations failed to go far enough and they failed to alter the reverse financial incentives to exploit consumers and then lots of leaf holes. So, I guess I'd say history tells us that the Biden administration ought to be looking at ambitious regulation that alters those big and bad economic incentives in the industry, and not trying to just sort of advance the traditional small board regulation that's filled with loopholes. One of the other things I think it's really fascinating is in documenting this history, you really show how much kind of the political support has changed for for profit colleges and you know regulation for profit colleges has become a highly partisan issue with a lot of conservatives being staunch defenders of the industry these days, but your book shows in great detail that that certainly was not the case for much of the 20th century, when conservatives often drove the push for accountability and sector, what changed. So there are sort of three theories to explain the GOP flip flop. But you might call Obama derangement syndrome. I mean the idea that anything that Barack Obama is in favor of conservatives and Republicans must uniformly oppose. The second theory might be called the sort of your leader syndrome. And that Republicans must follow Donald Trump in lockstep and everyone knows Trump founded a for profit university in his name, and he defended the school from lawsuits and some pretty damning evidence that the university was largely a sham. When Trump University was never eligible for federal student aid. It's hard to imagine Republicans leading the charge make for profit schools more accountable for having decent outcomes with President Trump, with the president Trump in the White House. But I think the third and the most important explanation for the Republican flip flop on accountability is the follow the money theory. In 2000 many for profit chains became not only giant publicly traded companies with hundreds of millions of dollars. They also became some of the biggest money givers to Republican lawmakers. So the fact that Republican lawmakers had already started to abandon any real effort to hold for profits accountable before Obama got into office makes me think that it's really the power of the for profit lobby. And that's the balance for the GOP flip flop. And remember, virtually all lawmakers have a for profit school in their district. I do want to say one thing. The Trump administration was really extreme in its support of for profits it was basically a mouthpiece the industry. A year into the Trump administration, a lawyer or big for profit chain that went on to collapse a couple years later. He actually put the song to his appreciation of the Trump administration. He adapted Randy Newman tune from Toy Story. You've got a friend of me. And with apologies to Randy Newman and to wedding. Here's how here's how the tune went. We got a friend in Trump. He's lifting us out of our slum. We were down and life was rough. Too many raids were way too tough. After so many years, we've just had enough but now we've got a friend in Trump. Oh yeah. But I think it's pretty clear that that essentially it's pretty rare when you hear the sort of glories of deregulation celebrated the song. Well, thank you for the rendition. I'm sure Randy and Woody from Toy Story appreciate it. You mentioned a lot. Are you talk a lot about in the book as well as within your remarks about perverse incentives to cut corners and educating students at for profit colleges. Can you give us an example and and how can regulation mitigate some of these incentives. So the title of my book is the profits of failure and I didn't use that title just as a busy title. I went on the book there are actually a number of incidents where literally literally pays off quite handsomely when a for profit school fails. And I'll just cite two examples here. One was the business model of correspondent schools before profit school these mail order schools would have had to close if all or even most of their students exceeded because they never would have had enough staff and resources to run quality programs for tens of thousands of students. The business model actually depended on having most of the people sign up pay for their course and then drop out without ever completing the course. Another example of the profits of failure is recruiting underprepared students on mass to enroll in school and take out federal loans, even if there's little or no chance they're going to complete the program. And other schools have done that by recruiting what's known as ability to benefit students. These are students who have dropped out of high school and don't ever diploma or GD, but they can still get federal aid to college if they pass sort of notoriously easy ability to benefit test. So those are two examples. So with that actually let's welcome some of our panelists into this conversation. As previously mentioned we have with us today former Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who is now a managing partner at the Emerson collective. We have with us and to net Flores, the managing director of post secondary education at the Center for American progress and again brought Bob Sherman the director of higher education and excellence at the Century Foundation. Thank you all for joining us. I will pitch the first question off to Bob but for the rest of the panelists please feel free to reply whenever Bob is done and that goes for all of the questions we have today. So Bob, you know there's a lot of discussion in David's book about the gainful employment rule to ensure graduates of career training programs don't wind up with unmanageable student debt. The Trump administration have rescinded the Obama era rule and President Biden has promised to revive it. What features of the regulation are worth keeping revising are discarding altogether. Overall, the structure of the game for employment rule made sense of the 2014 rule by looking at the question of how much is borrowed generally by students and what kind of earnings do they have in the future. So I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the Biden administration to to reinstitute the 2014 version. That said, the, the, you know, we always thought when this whole process started in 2009 that some elements of the industry would sit down with us and work out, work out some compromise some shared kind of approaches and as David indicated, instead politically with the Obama derangement syndrome, it just became this huge political fight to the death. And I would hope that maybe things have changed and that maybe some elements of the industry could sit down and talk through approaches that might address concerns that they have about the way the 2014 rule worked. But that said, I think, going forward with that with with that approach would be fine. I'm going to pitch this next question over to you David actually for for all of the flak the Obama administration received for targeting for profit colleges. What lessons can the equal amount of criticism from consumer groups and even the education departments inspector general that the administration did not go far enough fast enough to prevent the collapse of Corinthian colleges. What lessons can the new administration glean from that case. I think I think some of the IG criticism was fair. And I think there are lessons to learn. One important lesson is learn obviously is not to intervene when it's too late community. And there were the administration didn't have any kind of adequate letter of credit on record so if the printing when Corinthians college failed there wasn't any protection for taxpayers as a result of those losses. The creditors also need to do a much better job of supervising troubled institutions particularly preparing teach out plans so if the institution closes, there's a realistic plan that can be put into action pretty quickly to make sure those students can transfer to another institution and that I just didn't happen in the printing colleges example. Unfortunately, those lessons were unlearned again in the Trump administration which had its own version of the printing colleges collapse that was disastrous with the dream center schools and some other for profit changes that chains that So I will throw this next question over to Arnie, you know regulations are rendered useless if authorities failed to enforce them. And David's book has shown that the Education Department has a history of giving institutions a multitude of chances to redeem themselves before facing sanctions. What can the Biden administration do to strike a balance to achieve fair and effective oversight. First I just want to thank David this is just an unbelievable amount of hard work, very complex subjects and days of little bias is a good friend with a great work together but he's a master so they're just stealing hard truths from complex situations I think that's what he's done here. So I think at the end of the day what I personally believe, I agree with David on, you know, almost all these things that this is not a bad apple syndrome. You have a structure that is broken he calls it a market failure. I think that is accurate. That's something that's not going to self correct. That's not something that transparency is going to fix. He may remember we, we desperately begged the industry to self regulate early on we didn't want to have this fight we talked about that, you know, American Bar Association American Medical Association lots of examples of industry self regulating. The last thing we wanted to do was get into this space but they proved and honestly admitted to us offline they were incapable of self regulating. So I think what what the Biden administration, any administration has to do is just put in place those guardrails, so that you don't have desperate people ending up in a worse position than they started there's just something not just education but morally bankrupt about that. And I said that I want to be clear, I actually want a thriving for profit sector, if they're doing good work, we have so many people 18 year olds 38 years 58 years across the country, the need retrained and need retool and the need skills for the new economy, and the traditional sector isn't large enough or strong enough to have the capacity. So I just want to always be clear this is not an anti for profit speaking for myself. It all it's just an anti hurting students mentality and so the Biden administration any administration could just fight you know continue to fight for students to stand that gap. And if you had less folks taking advantage of people and more people actually delivering high quality education that helps people climb the economic ladder. Honestly, I hope they grow and thrive. And to net you have done a great job of keeping an eye on the regulations of the for profit sector, as well as accreditation and all of the ways in which these things kind of work together to create this regulatory regime. Where do you see the largest holes in the regulatory regime created terrain and abuses in the for profit college sector. And how would you address them. Thanks Danielle and I also want to say thanks to David I found your book incredibly insightful. It includes every nugget of history you didn't know you needed in order to understand both where we've been oftentimes more than once and where we're going so definitely a great book to dig into if you're interested in this topic, but the biggest holes right now are all of the areas that were deregulated under the Trump administration. But there are two in David mentions these in his final chapters. There are two that where for profit colleges are transforming and growing in part to circumvent existing regulations. And so they're the biggest holes because regulations haven't even begun to contemplate them yet. The first is the emerging emerging trend of for profit colleges transitioning to nonprofit status and Bob Sherman is the expert here so I would point you to his work but the challenge is that for some of these conversions there's still a profit motive where owners are maintaining a stable stake in the school. And you're not really fundamentally changing the way that the school operates so it's essentially a wolf in sheep's clothes clothing. One of the things that apartment can do here it has very broad authority to both approve the conversions conduct monitoring and it can set the terms and put restrictions on conversions to ensure that schools are meeting specific criteria so for example like the second is, and this is sometimes a part of conversions but it's also increasingly being used across across all sectors is schools relying on an accredited for profit online program management companies. And these companies vary a lot in what they offer for some it's just the technology platform for others and includes everything from marketing and recruitment to managing the school content training professors and these companies are collecting large sums in many cases of tuition revenue from the students it's not clear to students enrolling that they are enrolling in a school and being taught entirely by someone else. There's a regulatory loophole here that allows some of the more concerning practices and it in regulation. Regulation should prevent colleges from using recruiters for things like admission and enrollment or financial aid it's supposed to prevent high pressure recruiting tactics which is a big part of the history that David highlights. But the guidance related to the regulations allows a carve out for third party providers like online program managers so changing the rules there is a really great place to start. I'm going to emphasize with the last few minutes that we have I'm going to open it up to some audience questions that our folks here have been cultivating so let me check these out now so one of the questions is why should there be different accountability standards depending on the tax status of the institution. We all know plenty of so called nonprofit colleges that are very revenue driven and aren't doing a very good job of serving students in terms of graduation rates, or the kind of debt that they wind up with after college. And anyone can feel free to address this one. I just want to mention that the gainful employment rule didn't apply to colleges based on their tax status. About a third of the programs covered by the community colleges were private institutions they basically applied to certificate programs in for profit schools and lots of certificate programs. And that's the for profit sector that where people where the institutions are paying taxes. The answer that question is really what I stated in my near the close of my remarks that there are three big problems that are just far far more common in the for profit sector than any other sector of higher education and those are leaving students with debt, closing midstream and not providing the transfer for students and using fraudulent deceptive recruiting tactics. So that's that's why that's why the for profit college sector has historically always gotten heightened scrutiny than other sectors. And I wanted to add to that that the term tax status is misleading because it makes it sound like the differences are like between being, you know, married versus single on on a tax status, but it is actually an accountability status so when you're legitimately a nonprofit, you are accountable to a board that is not the money makers, they were prohibited from being the money makers. Same thing with a public institution you're accountable to a public entity to elected officials who are not allowed to pocket the money that comes in. So the accountability itself is different in a nonprofit or versus a for profit entity when they are legitimate. And so it's so so at you know, asking and I think David makes this point in his book you know asking for for the regulations to be the same is a consensical question because accountability by definition is different than nonprofit public and for profit institutions. So another audience question, can't vigorous oversight of department accreditors actually make a big difference in which for profits can continue. So the combination of ACICS and the consequent greater oversight by other for profit accreditors cause some of many of the low performing for profits to close. Should this be the primary focus of the department going forward. I can weigh in there a little bit. I would say that the increased scrutiny of institutions by accreditors is what has led to led some institutions to close. On the contrary, ACICS is still in the system, the Department of Education restored their recognition and so that's one of the considerations that will come up under the Biden administration because the problems there have continued. Last year the Department of Education also dramatically rolled back many of the regulations around its own oversight of accrediting agencies and what it expects of accreditors. And so if we're hoping for that to be a place where we see reform. We need to completely rethink their role because in many cases they're not well suited to conduct some of the oversight that is needed and these changes have to happen in conjunction with stronger federal oversight. You know the history of accreditors is that they are feeble overseers of educational quality, particularly in the for profit sector. I think we have time for one more question, one more audience question that is, and one of our audience members wants to know is there a difference between corporate publicly traded for profits and the smaller individually owned entities in terms of performance and accountability. Well one one difference is that publicly traded for profits have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for their shareholders. A little less of a fiduciary obligation in a smaller non publicly traded company. Some of the better for profits are family owned family run and there's some bad ones too in that category but some of the better ones are in that sort of category of having history of providing good career training. I don't know about Bob do you have any thoughts on that. I would agree I mean most of the, the, the biggest problems in terms of numbers of students and just how large the problem that the collapse can be has happened at the publicly traded companies or in some cases now kind of private equity funded but you know aiming, aiming for a be a public company eventually, and you know you do want to college that is thinking in the long term. And there's a, because at least think theoretically that a family owned company that is thinking for the long term they want to pass the company on to their, to their children perhaps etc. And so I think that's why we have seen some good for profits that are that are family owned. It's not an absolute but I, but, but certainly the biggest problems have been at the publicly traded big companies that guys I think we are actually at time a little overtime but I thank you all for joining us today David thank you for this wonderful conversation to all of our panelists. This is a quite a read. I got through all 500 pages. And you'll feel educated after, after having done so so thank you for that. Thank you again to New America Foundation as well as the Century Foundation for hosting this. And thank you guys for joining us. That's it. I wanted to say my, add my thanks and to appreciation to Danielle to New America Century Foundation, all the panelists, the books available on paperbacks available on Amazon, if you'd like to read it. And thanks for everybody who tuned in today.


Okay, so hi, I'm Simon Phipps. I'm going to be talking to you about Hi-Side in a minute. But I thought I would take the opportunity to show you how I'm doing the presentation. I'm doing the presentation here on a Google Pixelbook Chromebook. Chromebooks are renowned as just being a web browser in the box. And that is indeed what you're going to hear if you look throughout the gear. That Chromebook is running directly on top of the Alexa code. There is almost no other software getting in the way of running. But what Google has just introduced on the Chromebook is the LXD, LXC lightweight container. And they then integrated that into the Chrome desktop so that all of the desktop environment will get consumed by KDE and are consumed by the Chrome desktop. And they then also integrated that into the file system to give file access. And they have then sent up so that there is a default container to get downloaded to enable it. So when you start out with your Chromebook, you run in the settings here and you ask to enable the Learn to Beta. When you enable it, it sits for about 10 minutes while it downloads the desktop before that is contained. And it then enables in the Chrome menu over here a terminal. So it enables this terminal here. And that's a full backup that you can use exactly as you would expect from the LXD. That's running in a container on the LXD. You can also start out with Supervisory Container for the time that you control LXD using the LXC smartphone tool.  So it would be perfectly possible that every container chosen to develop an environment and a separate container is a desktop environment. You have them running at the same time with different apps. So you have two different versions of your development environment running in them. So they've got a reasonably coming thing with the file system. Because it's running in a container, the file system is inside the container and they have two different ways you could think about that problem. You could make the outside file system available inside the container. But they've put the other way around it. They make the file system inside the container available out in the outside space. So down here they make click on the files. These files are files in the file system inside the LXD container. And Chrome OS is talking across an API to pull out the different files on the LXD container. So that means the integration is reasonably thorough. You'd like to use these Chrome OS playgrounds to download files and then insert it into the container for me. The integration is not absolutely thorough. There are still features that are missing. So you'll notice in a minute, for example, or it's probably okay. You'll notice in a minute, for example, that I am unable to detect the Chrome because I'm in the Austrian language in the League of Office. So I can't really present the console. But overall, I would say this video is pretty awesome and I'm very keen to see the environment that I've given you here. So then I'm in League of Office. This is probably League of Office I got just by sending out a store in League of Office and grabbing it out of Debbie. I think you can find it in 5.2. It's the version that is in on Debbie. It's sort of long. I didn't ask you any questions, but let's grab it at 4.1. So then we'll update it all the time. And it's also not usually particularly fun to be through the face of a service. Because those are a pretty default environment. So that's League of Office on Chromebook. Chromebook is very clean. Almost all the new ones have got this capability on them. The world goes straight to it. It goes ahead and releases a new Chromebook on Chrome. People have this capability. This Chromebook also runs on any Android app as well. So this is beautiful run on any Android app. Yeah, it has a much more integrated approach. It's running, it's forming by Google. And it has a limited environment. You know, managing yourself. It just contains a lot of stuff. I think it's a lot of fun to be able to do Chromebook. Sorry, Debbie. That's fine. So now we've got the schedule. See, I talked E2, now I'm going to talk OSI to you. Hope you all enjoy the page. That's the type of thing you'd be able to do a lot of stuff. And that means you're now a journey to the work. And that means everything you do from now has to be over the source. Okay? The king is alive. I'll refer you to the source you're doing now. So let's talk about the source. We're using the method of the 80 years old, beginning of February this year. There's some discussion about, exactly, my name is 20 years old. There's the founders of this group. They were somewhere around the 7th, the 10th, the 14th. There's someone around there that open source has come. Now, open source, I was just wondering, because I don't know free software. Before open source, what you call open source today is called free software. You can use your first name. And the origins of free software are in two weeks. And depending on when you try to get a part of it, you may well see that it's only one of these people. But the true origins of free software are in first place. Bill Goodall here, who was the author of the primary author of BSD News. And the BSD license arose finally in 1988. It arose with the licensing company, which dates back as far as 1977. And then Richard Stolman, the UPL, was founded in 1989, but it might say that it's essentially extents back from the beginning of the 1980s. And both of them were available where software was expected to be freely developed with the source code. And so the origins of the thinking of the first software system go way back. Richard Stolman says about free software. Free software is software that gives you the user free. And that use of the word free to me and spread from freedom is highly favored by Richard. His work was saying that the needs and rights are self-evident. But unfortunately, we found at the beginning of the 1990s that when we were about to discuss what the company was about for a software, the executives heard the words of free and assumed that they wanted to give everything like a new way that I'm charging for it. And that word free took so much unexplained that many of us thought we had another word to talk about very software in an environment where there is just a first language. And in my recognition as a non-first language, the equivalent of the word for free is normally not a problem. And so in the country like, I'm very familiar with the leading companies where they look at the software need rate. And software need rate is open source. Yes, the phrase means free software is the same thing. You don't need another name down the road. But in the country like, it is the first one where you aren't convinced that you need another word to describe the four freedoms of use, study and prove their software. And so 30 years ago, Bruce Carrickness was one of the people who was involved in something else. He says that open source is the name of a marketing campaign. Open source is a marketing campaign for free software. And the goal of that marketing campaign is to get as many business software as possible investing in free software. So I go from the very beginning, it's not being very confident that it's been instead increased in how the free software there is to be. And to achieve that, I'm not confusing this to people about the intent of the software. Because it's very easy to confuse liberty and price if you've got English to your first name. And so as you hear it's going to be York, you can see the dot-prime commuter in the posture of liberty, hoping they will think of liberty and freedom of this liberty and price are the same thing. So open source succeeded because it enabled softwares and owners to advance software free work as well as in their private matters. I think that's the number one reason why open source succeeded. Prior to 1998, if you wanted to work on software free, the only narrative you had to use for the boss was a narrative that started with word free. And you started with word free and stopped listening to the network. And the open source market now allows for a conversation that lasted beyond one word. And as soon as people heard about the value of open source software, they wanted to use it. They can illegally see reasons to use it. So in the first decade, we went through a fairly valuable progression from being upstarts, advocating for open source software to being in a gold-breaking market where people were trying to admit that it was a new business model. OSR was founded in 1998. It was founded at a number of stages. There was a meeting at the V.A. in the Alps in February 1999 where a number of leaders of the open source movement met together to discuss how to explain free software to businesses in the context of the difficult discussion that happened at Nenscape over Liberator, and that experience informed their understanding of the word free as we go. The first decade, the term open source was coined in 1998. How can we get more careful with that phrase for you? We will call it free software when it stops as early as 1996, as far as I can find. And I've met people who played their music in the term earlier, although I haven't heard their memories but open source as a movement started in 1998 was being piece-crystallized with thoughts of the people in that room of view. They said, hey, wouldn't it be a great term to use? And the leaders of the free software movement said, yes, that would be great. In mid-literate, it was normal for Liberator the first six months to be very supportive of the theory. But I believe that he had a simple argument which was some of the founders of the movement and he practically had to make this deal closer to a great deal. I don't think there is any reason today why free software is a problem than non-supportable open source software or wide open source software. So software supported and non-supportable free software because they had just the same thing to make a difference. Yeah, the software that was published in 1999 was created by Bruce Perron. He was the author of the debut of Free Software Guidelines and he was in the middle of writing the debut of Free Software Guidelines with Eric Perron and said that they needed an open source software and Bruce said, hey, leave this. And so the two things were absolutely identical. What day is it now? They had done the effort to justify themselves then but they are still close enough for you to treat them to the same thing. At the beginning of the movement most open source software was a dropping replacement of the corporate private software often on the desktop. And so early on the big power was to have nothing controlled by Microsoft and Microsoft as a consequence was not impressed at all by Microsoft and was particularly insistent on the latest and described as famously as a cancer. That didn't stop them from becoming a bad man by the middle part of that decade. There was a rush of new open source licenses. There was also a rush to make money off new components of open source to scope soon the idea of an open source. And 2004 it became a character of Microsoft's opposition when beyond calling it a cancer it was actually an organized campaign and he found out how to develop open source. By 2005, units that started to be open source after nearly 40 years of being a proprietary software when some made some large open source software and by 2006 the standards of the movement began to realize that the open source was for implementations which is why open source should not be open source. In 2007 I knew about open source and so the last key platform that is accessible to new open source the applications of open source was Tomcat, Jungle open source the unit operating systems of open source all wanted to be open source. So by the beginning of this first decade of open source 2008 I'd say that most of the CIOs understood what open source was they understood the game of business benefit they understood that it was about collaboratively maintaining the software that they depended on instead of the mass enterprise software. In 2001 we had the one that we still need to carry on paying and what OSI does is it crystallizes the consensus about licensing and getting concern to the software levels so I'll explain that. Secondly, open source licensing is multi-natural that is to say it is between all the partners that are maintaining the software all software licensing prior to that would be bi-natural. It would be between unknown user and hence the germane user licensing area which is a bi-natural between you and the copyrighted owner but by being multi-natural I'll give you a blanket provision open source 207TL for development and development setting free to the user and finding out how to create safe services for collaboration for the better. So what I thought about the first time I took the consensus I'm really talking about the licensed review process the last review process is the process by which the new open source license gets by software free it's very important that the license is half of a software free because that is the gateway marker that tells developers that the tons of this license have been kept and there are no tracks and it's possible you could consider other licenses to be effective in this but you wouldn't have any reason to have that kind of experience beyond your own opinion because you wouldn't have anybody else to connect to the agreement or collectivism to rely on So what I thought about was that doesn't act as a king of open source rather I suppose the speaker of the house it moderates the conversation we have a conversation about the license there's a conversation going on right now the license should be made against about it it proposes a new open source license and members of the community of anybody you're a very important authority I'll work with one of this government to do about the license when that discussion is centered to them and all the opinions are seen by the meeting's friends then the OSI directs a summarizing conversation to see if there is a consensus and then if there is a consensus the OSI approach votes to agree the consensus has been agreed and the license is now approved and so what we do is to crystallize the community's consensus we stop the debate for carrying on for over and we say although it seems all this but all the opinions have been expressed we're going to cut the conversation now we're going to say either this license is approved or our credit license needs some more work but I don't think we've ever denied approval for a license but there have been many cases where we have said that the license needs more work before it would be approved and that's what's going to happen and that's what's on the license review today by the way it seems that the meetings are very poorly and it's a very hard public advice given to the OSI it's not going to like it that's not the way we don't want to try and do open socializing we now have about 80 of them we think that almost all of the common ideas will be tried out and if you come up with a new common idea a very common one you check with the front before you post it to the license reviewers because we're not very sure if we haven't done that before that's a good way to go but we definitely won't do that the license described the environment for a business reviewer it is the truth between the two companies that says where they hate to go where they don't hate to go it is the grandparents of your career and open socializing is not a problem but open socializing is the constitution of the community it describes what rights can be awaited for everybody and what the terms are by the human part to use software-free developers for you to study the software for you to improve it to better ignore other people's needs and the freedom to distribute by the written version or your one if I'm wrong and all open socializing is to be checked by the community so open socializing is a multi-national consensus of the commitment to norms to a community and that's why you never try to argue you never try to make them you never try to negotiate them because they already be collectively grouped by a community to be described now for the lawyer are they described an open-source license creates safe spaces for a community to collaborate it does that in three ways by mitigating control points by isolating business models and by guaranteeing rights on another party by mitigating ownership of control points what I mean is an open-source license gives you all the millions you need in order to use the software that's around you and you can reasonably say this to that it is all of the rights that are on the side of it try to assemble it in English and see if you remember what rights are right secondly isolating business models open-source does not have business models this is simply and an open-source community that's supposed to justify to a community in order to defend a business model an open-source community has got to enable every participant to satisfy the motivation of the community so your motivation to come with a community was to make a profit we should not be frilled on or frilled to do that but on the other hand my freedom to make money should not take away your freedom to make money and so open-source is the tools of all the other systems and stops them from messing with the community and because of that open-source communities are often places where there is a profit that's not involved because it's safe for competitiveness when we ever collaborate with the software that does not differ in the area and that's the reason why if licenses are being bought for approval OSI will not make exceptions to allow to accommodate a business model so the discussion going on for example with our readers use of the open-source laws in the open-source licensing or the attempt to have a a no-component license both of those are going to be not all failed and recommended as open-source by OSI and by the wider community because they failed the test of isolation from a business model or isolation from motivation that's open-source removes all the barriers to collaborate by giving you permission in advance and I think that that is the primary reason why open-source is one I'm very careful about saying that open-source is one but open-source became by the end of the first decade the default to something for hanging the work of the software in the community software it was not before when you were a specialist software market it wasn't embedded software although the embedded one computed an awful lot of open-source software but in the community or complex software market open-source is the default to something that you can make a better upgrade and it did that because from reduce beats rehabilitation by collaborative development and the only reason we didn't use to do collaborative work was because we didn't have permission for example to ask your boss or you had to ask your lawyer or you had to ask both and so both really some kind of character that chilled the community and software free of the source runs from the right team in advance and OSI approval license guaranteed that you have the focus so I didn't argue that new license doesn't need OSI approval I think that's a mistake community owners don't check the license with their lawyer they check their license with OSI and they accept and ask you for approval and if we have they say well that's clear for me I'm going to go and if we have they say well I don't really care what you do in OSI because OSI has never approved it it must be a problem so I think this role we've been playing has been a really valuable role in the first day so the second day of open source things move differently we saw brawl in the right culture we saw the bacon of software patterns becoming real and we saw arguments about PPL and forceful this big summary of the day for you Microsoft by 2015 but just now the open source was no longer a cancer and in fact I can undone and I think that by 2018 that state did a great job in finding true and I'm having to talk to you about why I think that I'm not on video today OSI is at the heart of almost all new software even if it looks for ground assurance and problems it's probably other sorts of insider problems in my view, software stops being open source if you don't have software free from it and so when we put BSD inside a packet of software or BSD inside then they will be open source software and it doesn't give you software free from it so there's no point in you considering opening source so all that is in 1979 when the rules had to play and the rules had to play with open source people I'd suggest to you that today the rules will take you again the place where you can make money with open source software is changing I keep saying to you is it open source is never done until you get to the cloud I don't think that's true I think what it says here is you will see a change in the way that people use open source open source is a real value is that it lets you innovate without asking it lets you start where other's really it's kind of a setback up until the time comes it lets you stay in control of the resources that you make if you want to and it lets you spend your resources on enabling other people to collaborate instead of you as a huge oligographic organization that used to be the only one it lets you innovate and then let others maintain the maintenance of your innovation it lets you influence the level of your systems even though you're small the open foundation leave office open office before it uniquely Microsoft's business dominance I believe it was open office that brought down Microsoft office as the dominant force in computing because we came up with open document before in the 2000s we came up with a alternative to Microsoft's office we were often the reason why Microsoft had to cut their rights between decade bills and actually end up being used and one of my great regrets that we didn't find a way of monetizing the abuse is to reduce Microsoft's service rates which would have been great we have got some of a cut that was insane people said if you don't reduce your rights we will be open office we will be free wouldn't be money New technology is only possible with open office I don't think people do clap but I think every time you try to scale I don't think you can do the IOT without open source because you really don't want to count how many things there are out of time to do license management so open source is a fundamentally language I don't think it's out of the simply because that's a copy there I think that it is actually still integrated in that so what's happening in the third I think we are going to see a community on our senate in what is going on with open source software I think we are going to see a single project companies finding harder and harder to create business while we are going to succeed I think we are going to see licensing change it's going to stabilize and there are also going to be the prime single software framework in using open source software in the enterprise and since we are having that by the side the president will move into new roles and take the form you want into the service of a community I think we are going to have a community world where we are going to see most people who work with open source for general business we are definitely going to see most people who work with specialist on a particular thing but I think open source is going to be very non-critical about assembly and solutions and I think that open source people are going to be the assemblers of solutions and thus deep development in order to prepare for that I recommend that in where you are going to cultivate a culture of community the key skill that every software engineer is working in community possibly working in community remotely and secondly I think single project is our best challenge the first decade it was the blockchain next decade every presentation you heard was talking about open source for general business just like every presentation today is talking about how they are using the blockchain people really would like to have a release train model so that they will be able to control and provide for their software and in the third decade of open source I think we are going to see different migrating by the way rather than different migrating by the way and as a consequence of that I suggest that we get really good at managing the complex assembly of single parts into something that is unexpected and beautiful those are all vanity licenses coming from both companies that I worked with which will be my via public license and they will be included in public license and some may have some industry standards license by the second decade we realise that we really need that in the licenses we are going to introduce together public communities different and what we came and done on the second decade compliance in the world of server license I think in the third decade the biggest problem is going to be other compliance and compliance I think it's going to be compliance in particular actually if you maintain the build system you really should go into a community of that kind because one day it's going to be really important to you you need to make sure that you maintain industry give credit free because by giving credit free you will remember and when you're done you will remember in a way that satisfies the terms of the license that we introduced I recommend that you only use high-side proof licenses no matter how selective the idea of adding a ride-off or using a monitoring license like the FBSD please don't do it because you'll discover that compliance with the terms of the under-application system is going to be a burden to you regarding the process I think we're going to be discovering software free the first decade of open source we were turning it down on the other side of the moral basis of free software in a different vocabulary to explain software free but in the third decade we're now facing new problems and the students for those problems are almost all the way to the industry market by looking at the freedom of the end users to use the source code of the software and I think in this decade we're going to really discover software free as our compass for solving new business problems as they run in our role I believe that you have a lot of standards on community verification and on the core of people's authenticity of software when it comes to free software I recommend that you're probably going to be involved with the people to join the business organization or to join the complex foundation or to join in some of our and I think you can do that because that is the new way that open source communities are coming together but don't forget to support OSI Free Software Foundation perhaps Software Freedom Conservancy because you need us pure characters to argue for the fundamentals if you only support the consortia don't support the characters you'll find that it would be easier and easier for a bad guy to take over so you need that and carry on to your work so that's been a third decade lifestyle but it's just been working for a resource great contribution to collaborating with the world but it's getting really good the complex assembly of civil violence all to make sure that the community and the community get the information you only need to be in compliance not just a reciprocal license term but also non reciprocal licenses being a practical guarantee cherish software freedom and tell other people why and cultivate characters as well as for the consortia and of course please don't it's only $40 for a small number of young sources and we send you on very pleasant very skilled staff who do wonderful things not about directors today I'm not paid by OSI until the birthday of my mother and the anniversary of her birthday


Good morning! It's Mary Ellen from the channel Mary Ellen After 60 and I'm here to do a video today talking about things that have really made me happy in the month of February and probably January and just some things I've really been enjoying and just to do some chatting and I'm gonna go ahead and get started with my pajama top. This is from Soma. It is the Kulnites collection and I hit a sale and bought these and love them that you can wear them all year long but they have just something special about them that keeps you warm but not hot if that makes any sense but this is pretty enough that I know I could wear it as a blouse. They do have clothing also but I love this and you know I love pajamas. I can't help it. I love pajamas and as I get more pajamas I do give them away. I don't just keep you know I know how many I can handle but underneath the pajamas is something I got last fall and I purchased several and they're just men's vest undershirts and I'll show you a picture or I'll link it below. They are very inexpensive. They're the traditional sleeveless vest that are ribbed and a lot of times I get cold and when I get cold I kind of get cold on my back so I have really liked them. I have them in white and I have them in black and I don't think I need to buy any more cuddles. They've taken the place and they of course they wash real well but they've just really been my favorite. Something I bought in mid-November that I didn't ever think I'd be talking about on my channel that I absolutely love is the scrub mommies. They're spongy on the back. They're coarse here. If you get them hot they get more malleable but I ordered mine from QBC. I think they have them on Amazon for $2.50 but a viewer told me she bought one at Kroger for 69 cents so look and see if you can find these anywhere. They're called scrub mommies. They are just the best thing to clean your countertop, to clean pots and pans and then you just put it in your dishwasher. So I have two in rotation and this is one of my originals. The other is wet. This just came out of the dishwasher. Okay you all who have watched me know that I love my silk scrunchies and I don't wear these to do like for a hairstyle but I know these are the very best things for my hair because they're a hundred percent real silk. I think they're mulberry silk and I got a package of five. When I'm around the house I wear these. If I wear my hair up at night or back at night I put these in because these will not harm your hair at all. But I was watching Melissa 55 and she was talking about velvet scrunchies and I ordered some. I ordered it in the dark and here's one and here's one close up. These like today I haven't done I just all I did was pull my hair up and it's like messy which is kind of like it's supposed to I have a trouble mine are usually too neat. But I just put it up and wrap it once and then put it back on and it will keep my hair up all day. Something about the velvet or the velour in it really will grab onto your hair so if I want to wear my hair up and and kind of in a messy bun I love these and thank you Melissa for telling me about them because I've really enjoyed them. On December 12th I started using the grande brow and I started using again the grande lash and I bought this in a cult favorites. I haven't I haven't used this yet I've removed the mascara and you'll see why in a little bit but it they weren't supposed to last this long but Marlene from Fab and Glam over 50 told me that hers lasted a long time and she has really pretty brows and I will tell you my brows have filled in through here so much. I don't I don't know the last time I put anything on my brows to film a video. I'm still derma rolling the ends of them but they have really thickened up so I'm still derma rolling and I use this these every night with the exception of the grande brow when I derma roll on Sundays I don't use it but I've used that grande lash every night and I think I I think I've got all the growth I'm gonna have in my lashes but I will continue using these and I'll let you know when they dry up that they're still going since December the 12th. In my fab fit and fun box in the last subscription that I had I got this and I was quite taken with it it's the magic eraser for makeup and what I do is I just go ahead and remove all my makeup using this I get it damp and it's really really nice it's $20 for one the next thing I did I ordered some magic erasers and these were in a pack of seven four I think it was $20 well you know I like to kind of check things out everywhere well here this is how big they are and I really do like these but I'm not gonna repurchase them but I do like them they have their purpose and and they're soft they wash up really well don't have any problems at all with them but I mentioned some time ago some that I found on Amazon and here they are this is a new one it has a little loop this is the perfect size for me and it works every bit as well as a magic eraser so I was really I've really enjoyed having these I've given some to my friends and and they're enjoying them too last year when it first came out I bought the pillow lips a lipstick from It Cosmetics I have this on today and I think this is wishlist I love these lipsticks I didn't know if I did it at first I really thought I liked their blurred line lipstick better I'm gonna put photos of both of these I have two and they're in the color the pinks and I have this on today and in those pictures I had did that this morning and I had no foundation no lip liner nothing underneath my lips and I still have this on and I've had it on for four hours and it still looks wonderful it feels wonderful it's highly pigmented and it provides a lot of moisture so not only do I like the color I like the way it feels here's what they look like these are in the pinks the packaging is okay it's okay they could have done better on the packaging but the lip colors are beautiful this is the one I have on wish list and this is marvelous and I like them both and I'll have the pictures above right here I purchased the pinks they also have the bolds and the nudes I'll leave a link below if they're available on HSN 2 for $33 because I really think they're good I've really really really been impressed with ColourPop it was something that was new to me I made my first purchase I think on January 1st is when I made my very first purchase no I made I did this because I bought this last fall and it is the Fame Palette well I like this so much and I'm wearing it today that I ordered something for you all I don't need any more eyeshadow right now but I wanted you to have them but I think they are fabulous eyeshadows and you know I love their their lip tint so if you're still here this is gonna be a giveaway and I'm gonna show you what you're gonna get they're gonna be for two people and you both will be receiving the same thing I ordered the going coconuts I signed up for email here's the colors I think it's beautiful and I got a 25% off discount so I ordered several of these not just to but I ordered several several of these to give away to my viewers to my family to my friends but I I just really was impressed with it also to go with that I ordered a set of three brushes from I ordered them from Ulta and it is the all-over shadow brush the crease brush and the smudger brush and I will probably when I send these I will take them out of this container but they've never been touched so that's the other thing and then and both winners will receive the small grande mascara I already have my favorite mascara you guys know I love the superhero and I probably won't be trying any this year so I thought well I got since I bought two of those packages of the cult favorites I thought well I would put these in a giveaway so if you are interested in being in this giveaway all you need to be is subscribe to my channel before this goes live be 18 years older older you can live anywhere in the world this will be up for three days and because it is a giveaway I cannot reply to comments but you know if you go to any other video that I've already uploaded and have something have a question or just a comment you know I will get back to you so in the comment section below all I want to know is something you really enjoyed through the month of February so good luck it is all good thank you for everything I appreciate you more than you will ever know and it is all good you take care and I will see you in my next video and I'm here to do today I usually pull my hair and thank you Melissa for pulp and it's highly pigmented so good luck and this is with the exception of the brow


From around the globe, it's theCUBE. Covering HPE Discover Virtual Experience, brought to you by HPE. Welcome to theCUBE's coverage of HPE Discover 2020, the virtual experience this year. I'm Lisa Martin with theCUBE, and I have a guest joining me from HPE Financial Services, Doreen Vu, Marketing and Business Development later in the APJ region. Welcome, Doreen. Hi, Lisa. Thank you for having me today. I should say good morning. You're in Singapore. Great to have you here. So talk to us a little bit about your role in financial services for HPE. Yes, I lead the Marketing and Business Development for Asia Pacific Japan at HPE Financial Services. Well, together with my team, we look to create and execute business strategies as well as go-to-market programs collaborating with our HPE and high-value relationship partners to jointly develop revenue growth and profitability goals that we all look to have. So the last few months, massive disruption with COVID-19, disrupting business strategies, disrupting go-to-market plans. What are some of the things that you have seen from that lens of helping customers from a financial services perspective? What have you seen since COVID hit? Yeah, so from a business perspective, COVID-19 has really intensified some of the, what we really knew in terms of the digital transformation that is so imperative in order to compete in today's very, very competitive role. And of course, in that dynamic situation, we also see a lot of customers when the pandemic hit them, they were trying to balance that with keeping their operations on as well as trying to still keep to their digital transformation initiatives. So all of that was really taking away some of what they see in terms of the budgets where it's really quickly deleting, some will actually be late or simply just taking away. So initially, we saw many customers who needed to boost their IT requirement very quickly in order to help their employees to work from home remotely and to continue to support the business online. So there were a lot of requirements in the initial phase. At the same time, we're also seeing that what customers were trying to do that, a lot of this were unplanned and so they had to look to how to do this, all these initiatives, as well as still keeping their cash to conserve it to weather through this storm whereby they are also seeing a decreasing revenue because of some of the lockdowns and restrictions that they are facing. So given how dynamic this whole thing has been and how fast businesses in every industry and pretty much country of the world had to massively pivot or shut down, what are some of the ways in which HPE Financial Services is getting creative to help your customers, as you said, kind of navigate shrinking budgets or budgets that are being quickly depleted. Well, at the same time, these businesses for financial agility need to have a big mind on cash flow. Yeah, so we saw that coming through and a lot of customers was also looking to see how they could continue both their operations as well as still keep their initiatives going ahead. So a lot of customers were trying to figure out what's the best way they can do this while maintaining all of that and keeping all the possible budgets. So we have put together a two-billion offer to help customers in order to tie through this period. And it was through a various lease of initiatives that we have, including some flexible financing scheme that would allow them to take advantage of the programs that we have while keeping the lights on, as well as making sure that they still have the cash to invest and actually adopt and go ahead with their digital transformation strategy. Tell me a little bit about how your team actually helped to create some of those flexible financing options so quickly, given how fast everything changed, what were some of the conversations like within HPE that you can share that led you to understand, okay, this is where we can deliver creativity to our customers? Right, so there were a lot of discussion going on. I mean, the couple of very key areas where we feel that the customers have very important needs is one where the supply chains have been disrupted and yet they have to keep their operations or boost their operations because a lot of people were working from home and so that connectivity needs to be in place, their service needs to be upgraded. So definitely they would need to upgrade their system and so that's where we have our solutions able to help them bring in some of the pre-certified, pre-owned equipment to help them upgrade and that can be done very quickly in the matter of days or even just weeks or days and so they can upgrade that very quickly. So we have a solution to help them to do that. At the same time, we know that cash is going to be very important, keeping their liquidity is very crucial for the business and so we have came together and put through a few of what we call deferral program as well as a relief program will allow them to take advantage where they pay as little as nothing for three months or as little as 1% for the remaining of this year and defer most of the costs to later part. So we think these are the ones that customers really need to because these are where they see some of their constraints in terms of managing both keeping their operations as well as the cash intact. And of course, customers have to plan for what's happening right now, which a lot of businesses and you and I are in this everyone work from home and then there'll be a next phase where depending on the type of industry maybe certain job functions will go back to the office and then maybe there would be a third phase where it's permanently some folks percentage large part probably are going to stay working from home. So your customers have to be able to work with HPE financial services to plan for those phases. And as you talked about, you've got a program to help them swap out equipment with a certified free on program. But I imagine that's equipment ranging from laptops to printers to network and connectivity and security technologies, right? It really spans the whole gamut of what HPE delivers. Yes, so for us, we are looking across the whole spectrum of IT, we pride ourselves as we aspire to be the leader in IT asset economics. And that's really where our strength is because we understand the value in each of these IT assets and it's not just about, you know, conserving cash of any sort but it's also about how to you acquire a whole IT assets with the best solutions whereby you can use it and consume it as well as, you know, you are not tied to a particular set of products and you get the chance to upgrade as soon as you need it. You know, so that's helps the customers in terms of enabling their strategies to go ahead with the various post COVID-19 plans that they might have. So that's where we could help with various options for the customers. Are you seeing, is HPE seeing an increase in e-waste because now there might be businesses that as you said earlier, we have to digitally transform to be compete. That's no longer a nice to have. What's going on from a sustainability perspective? Yeah, so from a, as companies innovate, right? A lot of times those are good innovations but at the same time as you innovate, you know, there are also the downside of where, you know, you create a different set of problems with e-waste and a lot of sometimes innovations might take place. Well, sometimes, you know, it's a little bit of trial and you might not proceed with those innovation. And that's where you might have created, you know, extra IT assets, which would not be used. And that is really a growing problem because, you know, we see 50 tons of e-waste being created every year. And so, you know, a lot of customers are also telling us to say that, you know, how we can help them in this area. You know, and this is really where HPE financial service can do a lot to help because we strongly believe, you know, in recycling out, cycling of our products and, you know, advocating the consumption versus the own mentality, you know, and that's where our various solutions really can help me to help to customers who are thinking about, you know, innovations, who are thinking about, you know, getting their business transform, we have different ways to help them to do that. And a lot of times that's where if, you know, customers look to that, it helps them to not just about building up strategy as well as building a strategy that is committed to sustainability. And continuing on this sustainability topic, I imagine to one of the opportunities that customers have to work with HPE and financial services is to stream on and simplify their environment. I imagine, I think of it, you know, a very simple analogy to spring cleaning, realizing, oh, I haven't used this in a while, I don't need it. Talk to me about some of the ways that from a sustainability and a moving forward kind of future direction perspective, where HPE might be helping customers simplify their IT infrastructures to reduce the amount of technologies and devices that they might need to help them be more efficient as their business strategies have completely changed. Yeah, so I mean, first of all, when the company looks to innovate and looks to adopt new technology, I think one of the key things that they probably will look to is how do they plan to use this? How are they consuming it? And think about, you know, are there better ways that they can consume this IT, you know, it's not so much about having everything and house and owning it, it's also about providing you the level of service that you need as well as, you know, is that what is required in terms of the best way to manage your financial agility in order to meet those requirements? And so that's probably very key for a lot of customers who need to look at both balancing their financial requirements as well as, you know, having the right strategy and contributing again, you know, to the sustainability goals that they might have internally. As we look at HP Discover coming up, you have probably a unique opportunity with this event having to be completely virtual of having customers in every industry in every region of the world now not have to travel. So expenses saved there, talked about them being, you know, cash constrained and budget shrinking, but you probably have the opportunity to talk to maybe a wider audience about what HPE financial services can help customers achieve in normal times and in these current times. Talk to me about some of the things that customers will have the opportunity to learn like maybe sessions that you're doing at Discover. Yeah, absolutely. In fact, I think this is one of the great things that's happening right now because everything is virtual. Anyone and everyone can go into Discover where in previous years maybe they're restricted by travels, they're restricted by timings.  So I really would, you know, invite all the attendees to view our spotlight sessions which is reimagining your entire technology assets that's delivered by our CEO of Robin. And also we have a future session that's in the women's leaders and technology whereby our COO Jerry Gold talks about leading, you know, through the recovery. And of course not to forget and we still have two more business talks as well as, you know, our demo rooms that in the showcase which, you know, I would recommend everyone to go visit. Terrific Doreen, thank you for sharing what's going on with HPE financial services in the time of COVID, how you're helping customers adjust their business strategies and thanks for sharing the different sessions that they can attend and learn from at Discover. We appreciate your time. Thank you, Lisa. It was great having to be on this sessions. Yep, it's my pleasure. Excellent, mine as well. For Doreen Buu, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE's coverage of HPE Discover 2020.