Andrew Fisher (NHTI-Concord's Community College) on Defining a Microcredential Strategy

On today’s episode of the Illumination by Modern Campus podcast, host Amrit Ahluwalia was joined by Andrew Fisher to discuss defining an effective microcredential strategy and common mistakes made during the process. 

Transcript

Voiceover (00:05): Welcome to Illumination by Modern Campus, the leading podcast, focus on transformation and change in the higher education space. On today's episode, we speak with Andrew Fisher, who is Vice President of Academic Affairs at NHTI, Concord Community College. Andrew and podcast host Amrit Ahluwalia discussed defining an effective micro-credential strategy and common mistakes made during the process. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (00:32): Andrew Fisher, welcome to the Illumination Podcast. Thank you so much for taking the time out today to chat. 

Andrew Fisher (00:36):Thanks for having me. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (00:38): I'm excited. I'm, I'm actually, we're gonna meet in person in, in a few months time. Um, you're jumping on the podcast today. You're, you're gonna be hosting a panel at, uh, this year's one EdTech Digital Credential Summit being hosted in Dallas, uh, focused on essential questions to answer that most people do not yet think to ask. Um, it's a topic that really jumps out at me, because, let's be honest, micro-credentialing and digital credentialing is one of those topics that people know that they need to focus on, but there's a ton of questions that they haven't thought to ask yet. How did you guys come up with a panel concept? 

Andrew Fisher (01:11): Yeah, it was really a collaboration between colleagues, um, longtime colleagues in this space. Um, and, and we just, this, that there are a lot of colleges and, uh, even companies that are stepping into digital credentialing space, looking at Microcredentials, trying to figure out how to manage and make sense of the world that's in front of them. They know they need to get into the water, they just don't know how to do it. In fact, uh, just a couple weeks ago we had our regional accreditation meeting, and most regional accreditors have their meetings this time of year. And it was a really, really hot topic. Lots of conversation about what are we gonna do about micro-credentials, how are we gonna document 'em? What are they used for? Um, we've got these badges, digital credentials, what, what, what are we supposed to be doing with it? And it was kind of, uh, both illuminating to watch, uh, uh, colleagues at very prestigious four year institutions struggle with this. Um, uh, and, and ask questions that many of us have asked ourselves along the way over the last 10 years or so. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, 

Amrit Ahluwalia (02:09): Well, that's, you know, we get into that topic. I'm, I'm curious, you know, obviously you've, uh, you've led academic affairs for, for about a decade at two different, uh, community colleges in different, very different parts of the country. Um, how have you seen badging and micro-credentialing models evolve o over the past decade? 

Andrew Fisher (02:25): Yeah, it's been pretty interesting. You know, I think back to the early days when, um, when it was badges, I'll call 'em badges, cuz that was the, the early date. Yeah. We're really just living on the periphery and there were this concept that you could use these badges to document experiences that students have that weren't collected elsewhere. Right. Not just a typical transcript where we take grades and classes and we park them and then we pile them together into degrees and then they move on to other institutions or other, um, workplace experiences that they go back and look at these transcripts and it means some things, but those are largely incomplete stories. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And so it was very compelling in the early days to to think through, well, how can we use this technology out there, these badges, um, to help fill in some of the gaps. 

Andrew Fisher (03:14): Um, and so it went from just thought concepts and basic ideas to a fairly, I would say, advanced ecosystem now. I mean, I remember having conversations with folks, uh, with, uh, early, early on when it say, when we would say things like, wouldn't it be amazing if a student who didn't pass a class could get credit for some kind of learning that they had in that class? And then move that to another institution? And, and those were felt like mind blowing conversations at the time. And now they're so commonplace that if, if you're in a crowd or a room and somebody brings it up, folks are likely gonna roll their eyes cuz they've already been down that path intellectually. Yeah. Like thinking through it. So to see the advances in the ecosystem has just been, just been tremendous to watch. And it's been a great blessing to be able to deploy at multiple institutions and different layers for, for different reasons. Really using it as the technology is designed to do rather than as a whole solution approach. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (04:13): It's interesting you think about sort of the early days of badging and, and kind of where we are now. Um, cuz it, you know, Mozilla opened badges and how, how our mentality around microcredentialing and digital credentialing in general has evolved from something that like sort of a non rigorous recognition of, of participation to what we're now looking at, which is, you know, are the assessment based? Are they, are they engagement based? And then what does that engagement look like? How do you measure that engagement? I mean, how has the shift in terms of our thinking around rigor and digital and microcredentialing impacted their, their accessibility and usefulness as that gap filler when it comes to recognizing learning engagements? 

Andrew Fisher (05:00): Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I mean, I definitely think input from higher education in the area of rigor and structure, uh, is, is a major story that has to be told, right? Um, simply getting badges for completion of work is not entirely new and or innovative mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Um, but really over overlaying that technology or that ability with the rigor of, uh, in the, the, um, the structure that comes with higher education is really what I think presented in the limelight, the, the full function utility, um, opportunities that exist. Um, and so we see the advancement of some standardization language. Uh, we've recognized that, okay, if I build a badge here, it needs to be able to be ingested somewhere else. So in order for that to happen, we probably ought to build these things on common protocols mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And so we're seeing interoperability be a, a, a major conversation piece in the last, um, handful of years. 

Andrew Fisher (05:53): Um, so too are we seeing, uh, uh, leers and, and CLRs, uh, advance in conversation again, that were just concepts a decade ago now have very standardized approaches, um, that that will allow for documentation of student learning to move around in between these different ingestion systems based on common standard protocols. I, I mean, I definitely think that that wouldn't have happened without conversations in higher education without higher education really grabbing the bull by the horns and saying, okay, if we're going to use this, we gotta get some thing things straightened out here. Yeah. What's interesting is, is that we're starting these some ancillary, um, conversations come up, um, that are entirely important, um, to, to have, but also in some cases are, are forming more of a distraction to the space, um, that are really being helpful. And that's the area of, well then what, how do we short shore a college gave a credential, um, they completed a micro-credential and they got a, a digital credential for it that it can be expressed somewhere else, but Yeah. 

Andrew Fisher (06:54): But now what's in it? So show me the assessment show now publish the assessment paradigm, now show me that what this, the grade is that the student or equivalency that they would've gotten with regards to it. I, I mean, I think those are important conversations to have, but I also wonder if they're, they're red herrings, um, for just a, a, a, a larger question in the area of where is the trust when it comes to, uh, to these digital credentials. And, and I think it's fair to say, listen, just because it comes from Tufts or, or, or some o other, you know, university or even a, a very prestigious institute that produces microcredentials doesn't necessarily mean that the student can do the thing. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And so I think that's, that's where I think better design in, in the creation of microcredentials by using dig, uh, digital credentials or, or some other form or function. I think that's really where some of these questions where people are just spending their time are likely gonna be redirected. Um, design really, really fixes a lot of things. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (07:55): Well, it's interesting too, cuz it, we start to get into questions of taxonomy mm-hmm. <affirmative>, if we're going to have a diverse credentialed ecosystem, which I mean, for those of you who listen to this podcast or who, you know, read the evolution, you, you can certainly see that's, that's the focus our, our publication has is how do we create a, a diverse post-secondary ecosystem with on-ramps and off-ramps and credentials that are, you know, fit different phases of a spectrum of access. That's, that's our vision for the future of education. But getting there relies on credentialing taxonomies that make sense both inside the institution and then across institutions regionally, nationally, at a certain point globally. We're nowhere near that kind of environment though. I mean, even within given institutions we struggle with defining credential taxonomies. 

Andrew Fisher (08:41): Yeah, a hundred percent. I mean, this is a conversation that I had just recently with the department chair who is finding some frustration in the technology we're deploying here on campus. Um, and, and I said, but the technology isn't gonna fix it because this question existed before the technology in technology wasn't, it wasn't designed to fix this problem. Um, and so for ages, we've had issues about grades and what grades mean, and you know, these are indirect measures that is, okay, so you get a, an 80 in a college algebra course, does that mean, you know, a hundred percent of the material at an 80% level or 80% of the material at a hundred percent level it looks the same, but there's a pretty clear difference. Right, right. Uh, in in students abilities. Uh, you, you know, once you start del into what the grades are. So I, I think the technology using digital credentials can help in some of these areas. But to your point, we've gotta figure out these taxonomies and ontologies and whatever ologies that you want to put on, uh, put out there <laugh>, we've gotta figure some of that out, uh, in order to, to, to get strong systems that are gonna talk back and forth. Yeah. But even more broadly to, in order to gain the trust back from, um, from the American public in, in the higher education system. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (09:51): Yeah. 

Andrew Fisher (09:52): Cuz we're not, we're not alone in, in questioning. Well, just because you gotta see in this class, what does that actually mean? I, I mean, other institutions say that about transferring students, other employer, employers say that about students that say, well great, you gotta be in this class that still doesn't tell me anything. Right. And so when when we fix the underlying architecture of assessment, um, then I think we'll find a very friendly face ready and waiting for us in the use of digital credentials. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (10:21): Absolutely. So, I mean, as now this is for me particularly fun cuz generally speaking, when I have conversations about digital credentialing and micro-credentialing, it tends to be with someone who leads a continuing ed unit. It tends to be with someone who might lead digital innovation or, you know, it, it tends to be almost like, I'm not saying that digital credentialing lives in skunk cork exclusively, but that tends to be where these initiatives are being driven. Whereas here, I'm, I'm talking to a provost of a community college, uh, who's been a provost of some pretty large community colleges, again, across the last decade or so. What role do you as, as, as someone who leads academic affairs and academic strategy play in, in helping to define a micro-credentialing strategy or credentialing strategy broadly for your institution? Because to your point, it's, it's not a question of let's adopt technology and then hope it all works out. It's a question of, you know, defining a strategy and then finding the tools to help execute it. 

Andrew Fisher (11:18): Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I do think there's a, that this is a growing space. I think you're finding more and more academic officers who understand that the solutions that we've been putting out there for learning documentation have likely not told a whole story. Um, and, and so we're seeing many pick up the, the, the banner of either micro-credentials or digital credentialing or, or something along those lines. Right. Um, I, I, I think that that's, that's happening. I think that there's a natural evolution and phase that, that, that folks go through and happy for the other similarly situated to, to call me out on this and tell me that they don't think that they see these things. But, uh, I, I, I think that I'm seeing my colleagues go through, uh, a phase where they recognize that en enrollment pressures, um, are going to impact, um, their institution. 

Andrew Fisher (12:07): And the next easy step is to say, well, let's develop a bunch of microcredentials and sell these microcredentials and that'll fix the problem. And it doesn't fix the problem, but it does highlight the fact that there are some, probably some performance inadequacies in the assessment system that's currently being deployed, which causes more and more questions to be asked about, well, if we can do this over here in the non-credit space, um, and it seems to be working well ish, right? Maybe not for, for on the revenue side, but we Sure. Like what we're seeing here and employers are asking for it. Maybe there's an easy way to transition over to the credit side. And, and it's not an easy transition, but it's an important process. Um, I think there's a reason why we're seeing lots of institutions follow this very, it feels like almost like a standard pattern now, uh, of we're gonna try it out in non-credit, whatever our non-credit solutions are, then we're gonna try some micro-credentialing things and then we're eventually gonna get to the point that we start talking about, okay, well how do we integrate this into our, our learning ecosystem mm-hmm. 

Andrew Fisher (13:07): Um, and so I, I think you're gonna see more and more of it. Right. And, and I'll admit that, that in the early days of conversations there, there weren't many deans or academic vice presidents that were part of the conversation. Now it's pretty regular. Um, and, and if we fast forward two or three or four years, I think that we'll see some pretty advanced conversations coming from, um, the academic side of the house without, you know, fully recognizing that it's all academics. Right. Um, but the traditional academics sense. Yeah. So I think, 

Amrit Ahluwalia (13:36): Well, I'm curious as we think about sort of this, the, the ecosystem wherein non-credit and credit exists, the coincides where there's learners who aren't necessarily looking at the college as being multiple sides of house, but as being a, a single college that they wanna interact with, but also recognizing the management challenges that exist between a, a non-credit education program and a credit education program. The challenges that exist between working in non semester systems and semester systems. Like how do you create academic policies and initiatives that create mobility between non-credit and credit bearing education, while at the same time positioning both sides of house to do the work that they need to do in the most effective way possible? 

Andrew Fisher (14:27): Yeah. Entirely complex. Um, I, I mean I've seen some institutions use p l A as the bridge point, um, and they say, well, if we can document Yeah. Fair on the non-credit side of the house mm-hmm. <affirmative>, and they can demonstrate that they can do the following things, then why can't we just bring that over, um, through, you know, policy structure into credit, uh, you know, we've done some of that. Um, and, and you know, that, that, that's, that makes a lot of sense, um, to, to start in that path. But, you know, you, you're pointing out something that I think is entirely true is, is that, um, there, there's kind of, kind of a series of dominoes that fall when you talk about academic structure and what's possible and why we should be doing what we're, what we're doing in, in one of those key dominoes really hinges upon, um, your ability to issue the credential, which is tied typically to like title four funding. 

Andrew Fisher (15:13): Right? Right. So generally colleges aren't going to offer, um, programs that students can't get financial aid for unless there's some other secondary or, or, or, um, mechanism by which they can access it. Right. It's entirely cheap, uh, in affordable, it's short term. And so it's accessible. An employer's gonna pay for it. We've got a grant that pays for it, so on and so forth. And the non-credit typically, you know, maximizes that space. Right. But we had a real problem in our state, uh, and, and that had to do with who actually had the ability and the authority from the state to issue micro-credentials. You know, if we want some real power behind these credentials, employers are actually identifying them as, um, uh, uh, prerequisites to employment, then we know we need to be producing, um, opportunities for students to get these micro-credentials. Well, we want them to be taught by how are the qualified faculty members, and we didn't have an e easy back bridge into non-credit from the credit space without just this idea of having and, and having seen enough of that. 

Andrew Fisher (16:14): I know that's just the, that's, that's the wrong road to head down where you say, we've got a 60 hour associate's degree, now we're gonna cut it in half and we have a 30 hour certificate, now we're gonna cut it in half. We have a 15 hour microcredential. That's a wrong approach. Right. For developing a microcredential mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So to connect all these dominoes, um, together figuring out what, how, how do you structure a meaningful course of, uh, a sequence of educational experiences that lead to employment outcomes means you have to have input from lots of people, including those that are providing the employment. But you have to, every institution has to figure out under what authority can I give this? If, if we want employees, employers to, to provide, you know, quality employment based on these credentials, then they have to stand somewhere. Mm-hmm. 

Andrew Fisher (17:01): Regional accreditors are largely silent in the micro-credential space. Um, we're seeing some movement in a handful of, um, uh, regional accreditors, but largely it's, it's to use the over overworked phrase, kinda the wild, wild west. Right. Um, somebody just creates a micro-credential and calls it a micro-credential cuz they want to, right. They have no, they have no, uh, definition, um, you know, they haven't adopted either UNESCO or somebody else's definition of what these things are. Um, they, they haven't written into it a curricular structure that we typically see in, in programs or we have have to have a certain number of major classes, a certain number of, you know, gen ed, so on and so forth. So it's just like, whatever, and throw it together and, and we say, well, I don't know how long it needs to be 150 hours, 500 hours. I don't know. 

Andrew Fisher (17:49): And so we're, we're largely guessing on the number of hours that we feel like these, these programs need to be. All of that is inherently extremely problematic. And so what we did here in the state was I pushed this large effort to, that would give the community college system of New Hampshire the authority to issue micro-credentials. Um, and so that that went pretty well and, and there was not a lot of resistance towards it, but it was a necessary prerequisite so that when changes come in PE funding or title four funding, that you can then make these credentials, um, financial eligible. Yeah. Long way around the mulberry bush to say that there's a lot of dominoes that that need to be lined up when we're, when you're creating micro-credentials. And I think one of the spaces that we're largely neglecting right now is, um, uh, policy, um, and also legal authority by which to issue, um, uh, credentials and micro-credentials. And that's likely not gonna change at a wholesale, uh, until regional accreditors get involved in and start saying, well, you have to start reporting on your micro-credentials just like you do any other degree that you offer. I think once we see that happen, then colleges will, will kind of snap two and recognize, oh, okay, we need to manage this through the same curriculum approval process and the same institutional structure and integrity as everything else. Which is the right answer. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (19:07): There's two pieces of that that I want to, I wanna circle back around on. Um, the first is, you mentioned the, that the, the sort of the top down approach to defining micro-credentialing, which is sort of taking an existing program and modularizing it doesn't, it doesn't feel right. Why, why is that? What, what's wrong with, with that approach to creating, uh, micro-credentials, which is, you know, taking the existing program, blocking it out into chunks and modularizing those chunks as opposed to constructing something new from scratch? 

Andrew Fisher (19:39): Yeah. I think there's something different than building a, a scaffolding or nesting program than building a micro-credential. Um, sure. Micro-credentials need to be able to transfer into to degrees later on if necessary. Mm-hmm. And so it's likely that there is some of that that's going on, some nesting that that's going on in those programs. But, uh, I think that the, the best case, uh, as that, that I can, um, or example point that I can bring out, there was a series of, of grants that were put out there by the federal government now about eight years ago, and many community colleges received these grants and, um, went to the process of building short-term credentials and they did it largely in the technology space. Um, and so in, in the solution that, that, that I know at least some colleges, uh, took, was not to build those from scratch, including employers, so on and so forth, but it was rather to take your existing certificates that were out there and or degrees, associate degrees and cut 'em in half and call 'em certificates and then, and then put it out there. 

Andrew Fisher (20:38): Well, they're ho the outcomes are on that were pretty bad, right? Mm-hmm. And so many colleges struggled with, uh, with, with, with the burden of carrying these programs that weren't necessarily industry aligned that they needed to maintain for a period of time. Enrollment wasn't there, students didn't want it. It was an institutional burden to carry those programs because of how they were built through the, through that having process. I think we need to learn from that experience in four-year institutions that may not have seen that can definitely take the opportunity to learn from the experiences of community colleges and change the design process of, of their, of their micro-credentials. Um, and, and even with the best, best case design, right? Doing the very, very best things you can to build the, the best product to put out there that, you know, the students want, that industry wants, so on and so forth. 

Andrew Fisher (21:27): There's still the landing point of getting students to enroll in these programs and being willing to pay for these programs and getting students employed based on these programs. Um, so yeah. I I think that there's a, there's a lot, there's, there's a lot to do and, but I do think we have some experience to tell us that just simply having the degree that you have, um, over time is probably not, not not gonna be the right answer. It needs to be a different approach, um, more industry based, more, more outcomes based, but it's perfectly fine and probably preferable if it nests into a degree later on. Got it. The, so student's not losing credits, they're actually gaining credits. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (22:07): So, and then actually it brings me beautifully into the second thing that I wanted to follow up on. Cause you mentioned sort of the an an expectation or a need to kind of define contact hours and engagement hours in order for an a student to progress toward a credential. Um, but at the same time, recognizing that increasingly mi the value of a micro-credential seems to be more stemmed in competency in, in, in learning outcomes, in being able to, uh, to leverage those learning outcomes and being able to display and, and use those learning outcomes. So at what point do we start to transition away from thinking about micro-credentialing in terms of contact hours when the value of the credential is more oriented to outcome? 

Andrew Fisher (22:51): Yeah. Yeah. It'll be slow moving. Yeah. And so as long as folks can get approved as experimental sites to do some of this, uh, again, to have title four funding. 

Andrew Fisher (23:05): I think as long as that's going on, I, I think it shows progress, but, but, but you see it in the space, right? And so C B N is is entirely integrated with, uh, with digital credential work and micro-credentials, right? For institutions that are doing really good p l a work, they're typically using, I say typically not all right? But they're typically using a structure based on a badging based system, right? Um, that has different pathways and so on and so forth. Documentation, I think that two are always going to be linked together. What makes it difficult is, is that we just simply can't move away from that credit hour so long as federal funding is tied directly to, to the, to that credit hour. And so we need to see a systemic shift in change from D OE away from the credit hour. But that's a scary place to be for them, and I respect that. 

Andrew Fisher (23:56): Um, and so I'm not pushing them, um, to move into the space quickly and without thinking through the implications. Um, definitely we need to see some patterns and we need to see some strong outcomes before even I'm willing to step into that space because even if it hasn't been amazing, the credit hour based financial aid system and or funding model has worked for our education for a long period of time. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> and, and our structures are likely not prepared for wholesale switch over to a competency-based approach. Um, both, both administratively, um, as well as, you know, computer functions, right? Uh, you know, there's a lot of retrofitting that has to be done, so we need to see it working well, um, in, in a handful of instances, um, before, even before I'm ready to say, okay, let's abandon the credit hour. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (24:44): Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, it says it's interesting, right? Like this feels like one of those things, like I wonder if there's space for a both and there probably isn't, but in the same way that when we talk about micro-credentialing, we're not, we're not talking about necessarily scrapping traditional credentialing models. It's adding a new layer on to serve people who weren't served. I, I think about this in very much the same light, but there's layers of bureaucracy that live there that probably make that hard, easier said than done. Now those of you who've done an interview with us before will know that generally speaking, what we tend to do with both the evolution and illumination is we'll put together a, a question list just to prepare, you know, the folks that we speak to and say, Hey, here are the topics that we're gonna be talking about in this interview. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (25:27): They'll guide the conversation. Thank you, Andrew, for the fact that I haven't asked you a single question off that list <laugh> so far in this entire discussion. But we, you know, for the peace of mind of, of those of you who are listening, we actually have hit on a lot of the topics that we wanted to hit on <laugh>. So what I'm gonna do is actually bring us back to this list. Cause I am curious about your thoughts on this and bearing fully in mind, and again, special thank you to Andrew. We have gone over time already. Um, but I, I'm curious, as you look at micro-credential program launches, as you look at efforts to scale and launch these kinds of initiatives, what are some of the most common mistakes you tend to see? 

Andrew Fisher (26:09): Yeah, I think first of all, starting with money. Um, you're not gonna make any money in the, in the digital credential space and or microcredentials. Um, you may open up more markets, right? and that's good. Um, because those are markets we're likely not serving. So that, that is the biggest one. If you are approaching this thinking, Hmm, I need to get on this bandwagon cuz other people are going to steal my students or take my students. Like, yeah, that, that, that's not a thing, right? Um, well, I mean, stealing students is a thing, right? But if you think about it in terms of market share, but yeah, uh, I mean this is, this is the wrong approach or the, the wrong reason to get into it, right? The second, and, and I say it a lot is, is that the digital credentials are, are, they're not a solution, right? 

Andrew Fisher (26:50): It's a technology, right? And so this allows you to document different things than our systems have currently been built for. And so, uh, anybody going into it saying, we're gonna deploy the solution and it's gonna fix everything mm-hmm. <affirmative>, it's not gonna fix anything, right? It's probably going to provide lots of opportunities for conversations for you to fix the things at your institution that you need to fix, right? But it, but it's a technology. It's not, it's not a wholesale solution. Um, and because of that, we're seeing it being deployed very differently at different institutions, and this is confusion in this space, right? And so those are the, the two that I would give, the third that I would give is, is find, please find somebody who's been in this space because they can likely save you some significant time, heartache, anguish, and also conflict on your campus, right? 

Andrew Fisher (27:41): As you begin to, to figure out how to deploy, um, the digital credentials or even microcredentials. Um, there, there are plenty in the space, um, who have been around for, uh, long enough that they can say, Hey, there's typically some patterns here. And when you're hearing your faculty say this, it's prob they, they, maybe they mean this, not this, right? And, and faculty generally are not obstructionist, um, to the deployment of, of these kinds of solutions or, or, uh, uh, technologies ra, but rather th they have a lot of questions right? In, in figuring out what the right questions are to answer is the heart, uh, is really the key to, to the heart of deployment, right? And so, I mean, those, those would be some things that I would throw out there where I've seen some false starts. Um, it's a marathon. This isn't, this isn't a, um, a a six, a six month turnaround where you sign a contract with somebody and, and off you go. 

Andrew Fisher (28:33): Um, most of these digital credential solutions basis that are out there and also micro-credential spaces that are out there, they provide some amount of technology support, um, and integration support. But largely what's missing our co is coaching support. And so I would very much encourage anybody in this space to find a mentor or find somebody to, to just bend their ear and just keep on doing it, and keep on doing it, and keep on doing it because you'll, you'll likely be able to learn a lot from that individual that will save you, um, some, some, some issues in the future. 

Amrit Ahluwalia (29:06): Absolutely. Andrew, I've, I've so appreciated your time. I'm, I'm looking forward to your panel. Um, for those of you who, who are interested or wanna know more, um, we're talk, again, gonna be both at, uh, the one EdTech Digital Credential Summit. Uh, that'll be February 27 to March 1st and 2023, uh, host in Dallas. Um, please do visit, uh, the one EdTech website, learn more about the conference. Andrew, I will look forward to grabbing a beer with you in a couple months. Um, and, uh, thank you so much again for your time. It's been a pleasure, man. 

Andrew Fisher (29:36): Hey, thank you. This has been great. 

Voiceover: This podcast is made possible by a partnership between Modern Campus and The EvoLLLution. The Modern Campus engagement platform, powered solutions for non-traditional student management, web content management, catalog and curriculum management, student engagement and development, conversational text messaging, career pathways, and campus maps and virtual tours. The result innovative institutions can create learner to earner life cycle that engages modern learners for life, while providing modern administrators with the tools needed to streamline workflows and drive high efficiency. To learn more and to find out how to modernize your campus, visit moderncampus.com. That's moderncampus.com.