Future of Work: Transcript of Interview with Maria Klave, President of Harvey Mudd College

Future of Work – Recorded on April 20, 2012

Host:    Welcome to the Human 1.0 Future of Work series, hosted by Scott K. Wilder, a digital strategist and founding partner of Human 1.0.  Today’s interview is with Maria Klawe, President of Harvey Mudd College, and board member at Microsoft Corporation.

Scott K. Wilder:    Hi, there.  My name is Scott Wilder of Human 1.0, and today is the next episode in the Future of Work series, and we’ll be talking to Maria Klawe, president of the Harvey Mudd University.  And Maria, before we get started with a lot of questions, I have to tell you that one of the most impressive things about your background is that – this photograph that’s floating around the web, of you skateboarding.  So, maybe you could tell me a little bit about your skateboarding background.

Maria Klawe:        Well, I hadn’t skateboarded before I went to Harvey Mudd College six years ago.  And when I got there I saw all of these students on longboards, and I just sort of went – you know, like, I really want to learn to do this.  So, after I’d been there for about four months, I went out and I bought a longboard, a helmet, pads for every possible part of my body…

Scott K. Wilder:    {Laughter}.

Maria Klawe:        …and I started trying this.  And initially I was so scared that the skateboard was vibrating because my knees were shaking.  But it’s interesting, because I’m now actually reasonably proficient.  And one of the great things that I found from doing this was, students would actually – they love seeing me on the skateboard.  And initially, when I was having a lot of trouble, they would give me lots of hints.  And it became this reverse mentoring situation, where some of the quieter students who wouldn’t normally necessarily talk to me, would be very happy to talk to me when I was out on my skateboard.

And so, it’s become sort of, for me, a great example of, you know, even at the advanced age that I am now at—I turned 60 last summer—of learning a new skill and actually, you know, feeling really great about the ability to develop that skill.

Scott K. Wilder:    You know, there’s something you said that was really interesting there, was reverse mentorship.  So, I spent eight years at Intuit, and one of the things – Intuit likes to promote a learning culture, and they hire these young, bright kids out of school and really, you know, give them the reins to help educate the older workforce in terms of technology.  So, I think that’s really – I mean, the skateboard analogy is great, and I think it’s pretty powerful.

So, I would be interested in terms of – you know, one of the ways I like to start these discussions is, tell me a little bit about your journey and some of the key decisions that you made in your life, that got you to where you were, and where you are today.

Maria Klawe:        Well, I think probably, you know, one very big decision was, at the age of 17, as I was starting college, I was going to be majoring in engineering.  And I switched to honors math because I wanted to take the strongest math courses, and you weren’t allowed to as an engineer.  And, you know, that was really an important transition because, you know, it really led me into having this really intense love for mathematics.

And then when I finished my PhD, there were almost no jobs.  You know, I’d always thought I would be a faculty member.  I love teaching, I love doing research, and I couldn’t imagine anything better than, you know, being at a university and working with students.  And when I got my PhD, there were very few jobs for math professors, and I ended up going to a university called Oakland University that is north of Detroit.  And even though, you know, the faculty in the department were very friendly, it was not a good match for me.  The students weren’t nearly as strong as the students I was used to teaching, and I was single and very lonely, and I had one date in the entire nine months of the academic year, and it wasn’t a good experience.

And, you know – so, I just by chance found out that there were tons of jobs for people in computer science and that, even more importantly, there was this area of computer science called theoretical computer science, where you could actually really do mathematics.  And so, I decided I would go back and do a second PhD in computer science and, you know, started at the University of Toronto.  Took ten graduate courses in my first year.  By five months I was getting invitations to apply for faculty jobs at computer science departments, and when the University of Toronto, which is a really great computer science department, found out that I was interviewing for faculty jobs, they said, well, we have a job.  Why don’t you interview here?  So, here I went from being, you know, like a beginning graduate student, to being a faculty member, in less than 12 months.

And then shortly thereafter, I met the person I married, and now have been married to for 32 years.  And he was working for IBM Research, and I ended up going to work for IBM Research for eight years.  And again, that was a phenomenal transition, because it gave me a view of industry and the technology industry, that I would never have had without the opportunity to do that.  It also gave me great management training, that is very rare to receive in academia.

And when we left IBM to go to the University of British Columbia, where I went as the chair of the computer science department, I think I went there with just a much stronger overall understanding of the technology industry and, you know, connections with technology companies, that I wouldn’t have had without those eight years with IBM Research.

And I was – we were there for 15 years.  Our kids grew up in Vancouver, which is a great place to raise kids.  And so, one of the things that I realized after a while was that, if you want to have an impact on the culture of science and engineering, you really need to do it from the United States rather than from Canada, because Canada – the focus of the development of science and engineering still is in the United States, and Canada is really invisible for the most part.

And so, that’s why I went to be dean of engineering at Princeton University.  And that was, again, a very great learning opportunity in terms of, you know, understanding a very different university system and, you know, opening up a lot of doors and, you know, making connections and so on.

And then, finally, I chose to go to Harvey Mudd College because, when I think about what needs to be reformed in this country—the United States—and more broadly in the world, it’s really more about science and engineering education than it is about science and engineering research.  We’re still very strong in science and engineering research, but I think there is really a need for change in the way we do science and engineering education, both in K through 12 and also at the undergraduate level.  And Harvey Mudd College has turned out to be just the most perfect place you could have, to explore those issues.

 

Scott K. Wilder:    Can you – this is fascinating.  Can you say more about the relationship historically, or in the last 20 some odd years, between technology and education, and where you think it should go in the future?

Maria Klawe:        Yes.  So – yes.  One of the things – if you think about what happens in – traditionally, the way we educate people, both in K through 12 and then in university, is we tend to expose them to sort of the basic building blocks of math and science before we actually let them see applications.  And so, even in computer science, a typical path through the discipline would be, you probably won’t get to the application courses like artificial intelligence, computer graphics, human-computer interaction, databases, et cetera, until your junior year.

And I think for many people, but particularly women and underrepresented minorities—they tend to be more interested in these disciplines for what you can do with them, than just for the intrinsic sort of internal structure and building blocks foundations.  And the same is true for engineering.  Typically, what happens if you’re – at most places, if you’re studying engineering, your first year to two years is all about math and science, and it’s not about engineering itself.

And we lose an awful lot of students who start out being really excited about what they can do as an engineer, or what they could do with technology.  And they actually leave before because they – because they get turned off by, you know, just mathematics, or physics, or something else that they see as being essentially taught as gatekeeper courses, and they – you know, they don’t see the relevance of what they’re learning to what they could actually do once they’re actually in the application areas.

So, that’s the first gap that I see between technology and education, is that, I mean, there are lots of counterexamples – Harvey Mudd College is a big counterexample, and there are other big counterexamples where we expose students earlier – you know, basically in your first year, in your first semester even, to the power of what you can do with technology, in terms of solving problems and making a difference in the world.  But the average approach is the opposite.

The other place where, you know, we see further – where we have believed there would be great opportunity for technology in education, is through really using, you know, interactive exercises, learning environments, to promote learning, particularly learning for people who don’t have access to great teachers—learning for people who for one reason or another can’t attend college, you know, in person, face to face, and so on.

And so, you know, there᾽s been lots of rhetoric for, you know, at least the last 30 years about the tremendous opportunities.  And yet, I would say that the actual reality of what has happened, has been much less promising than what has been proposed.  And I suspect that we are actually on the verge – we’re at an inception point where we may start to see the reality come much closer to the promise we’ve been hoping for for the last 30 years.

And there are a number of things that play into that.  One of them is, you know, access to the web is – broadband access to the web is much more ubiquitous than it was even ten years ago.  The cost of devices is, you know, radically less.  And the ability to use, you know machine learning, other data analysis techniques, I think will over time allow us to have a much better understanding of how to design learning activities that are more effective in engaging people and genuinely, you know, resulting in learning; and also to monitor what the student is doing, or the learner is doing, as they go through an activity, and have a better sense of what they actually know.

So, I’m actually quite optimistic about, you know, the next decade in terms of what we will see with technology helping us, whether it’s, you know, in math – K to 12 math education, or in learning computer science for – which is an area that, you know, there’s suddenly another huge demand among students of all ages to learn computer science because of the huge job opportunities.  And, you know, once again, we’re in this situation where there just aren’t enough faculty to go around.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.  And in terms of – sorry to cut – in terms of women as well as minorities, what happens in – after they leave – after they graduate, in terms of – you know, I’m reading a lot about, you know, women in terms of graduating as computer science majors, and then they go in the workforce and then they run into all sorts of challenges.

Maria Klawe:        So, I think there’s more data on what happens to women, than what happens to minorities.  So, one of the things we know is that, once women enter a tech career, they’re twice as likely to leave in the first ten years as males are.  And there seem to be a number of factors that influence that.  I mean, one thing is that they – if you go into a situation where, you know, 10% of the engineers are female, or 15% of the engineers are female—you know, given that most group sizes are five, six, seven, there’s a good chance you’ll be the only female in your group, or maybe there’ll be two females in your group.  So, it can be quite isolating.

The second thing is that women often have broad interests, even – you know, so you can be – you might be a computer scientist, but you’re actually deeply interested in music and in ballroom dancing, or sports, or in something else.  And, you know, there often feels like the work communities they go into are much narrower, and so already, you know, they just don’t feel that they really belong, because their interests are different.  The guys tend to, you know, whatever – go out for beer—do all these things that they’re not necessarily feeling included in.

And then they tend to see that the way, you know, promotions and recognition are given is, they – women tend to perceive that it’s more based on who you know, and being part of the network, which is basically a male network, than based on merit.  And – whereas the males in those same environments are definitely perceiving that it’s merit-based.  And I think a lot of this just has to do – that – I’m not saying the culture is either merit-based or not merit-based; but it feels one way to one gender and a different way to another.

And I say that because these have been largely male environments, they tend to grow up having a culture that is more comfortable to the male employees, and more natural to them, and so on and so forth.  And the women simply feel less well-connected.  Then when they go through, you know – if they’re having their first child, and various other kinds of things, it just seems in many ways that it’s more of a struggle to move forward.

And so, you know, usually they’re not leaving because of one horrendous experience, or many horrendous experiences.  It’s just that – it’s just, after a while, just feels like you’re sort of – you’re driving uphill all the way, and it’s just not worth it.  And particularly because, you know, women who have technology backgrounds will often be given opportunities in, say, sales and marketing, or, you know, product management, or various other kinds of things that are going to make use of their technical background, but allow them to be in an environment where there are many more women.  And, you know, it happens.

Scott K. Wilder:    So, you know, one of the reasons I mentioned – and not just women, but also minority groups as well, is, in my research here I’m amazed there are, you know, a number of women-related organizations; but very few men involved in those organizations.  And where I’m going with this is, you know, 20 years ago when I worked, you know, at American Express, I had diversity training, because they were trying to improve the workforce there.  I’m just curious of, you know—do men need diversity training?  Or, what are some of the – some of those – you know, recommendations, or…?

Maria Klawe:        I think everybody needs diversity training.  I mean, I really believe that – you know, I’ve been talking about this with some of the HR execs at various tech companies.  And, you know, one of the other issues that people see is that, now that we’re a global workforce, you see people from other parts of the world, particularly Asia, trying to integrate into the US workforce in tech companies, and really finding it just hard to navigate the cultural differences; as well as, you know, Americans going to China, or India, or wherever—Korea—and also finding it difficult to navigate.

So, you know, I actually think we need to be much better at educating everyone {laughter} about what it feels like to be an outsider, and how, you know – how one deals with cultural differences, and manages to create work environments that feel supportive to everyone.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.  Interesting.  So, you’re obviously involved a lot in academia and also in corporate America.  Are there any other – or any other distinctions between how people learn in those environments, or how they – how women and different groups get ahead in the organization or interact with others?  Is there something we can leverage from academic institutions in the corporate side?

Maria Klawe:        Well, I think there are things that one can leverage in both directions.  So, one thing I mentioned that the corporate side, I think, does better, is with – is management training.  In that, you know, one – if you’re going to be a manager and you get trained on how to do, you know, performance appraisals, and to set goals and, you know, resolve personnel issues, and all of those kinds of things, then there’s a lot of support for that.

And that’s something that’s reasonably new in the academic context.  We’ll get made department chairs, and deans, and provost, and all kinds of other things, without ever receiving that kind of training.  So, you know, I actually think that – you know, if you looked at a company like IBM where, you know, I really felt like I got great training there, and they have a great track record in terms of promoting women and minorities, the best of any company I know of in the tech industry – and I don’t want to ,you know, imply that IBM is perfect, because it’s not, and I’ve had lots of criticism about IBM when I was there and after I left.  But, you know, this is an area they really did well in.  And I think that academia is actually behind.

On the other hand, I would say that in academia I think we actually are developing a better understanding of the role of encouragement.  And, you know, one of the things I just – every day, comes home to me, is how important it is for students and faculty to actually – for positive expectations for them to be set, in the sense that, if you expect a student is going to do well in your course, and you set it up in such a way that all students in your course realize that they have to work hard, but they’re all expected to succeed, and you have high expectations for them—they tend to do that.

And I think companies aren’t always – you know, sometimes I think companies are still sort of – having this viewpoint that, you know, you’ve really got to set the bar high, because people aren’t going to do well unless you set the bar high.  And often, that can come across as, we’re expecting you to fail; rather than, you know, we have real high expectations for you, and yes, these are very ambitious expectations, but we’re totally confident that you can achieve them.

And so, there’s – I often get asked, you know, if there’s one single thing that really makes a difference to, you know, women persisting in tech careers or in – you know, either in academia or in industry.  I would say the single most important thing is continued encouragement from, you know, somebody who they think actually knows what they’re talking about.  So, it’s not useful if it’s your mother.  Because we all know that mothers encourage.  But if it’s, you know, somebody who’s more senior in your company or your institution, who really, you know, continuously expresses the belief and provides examples as to why that is true that you’re going to succeed, it has a huge impact.

Scott K. Wilder:    Interesting.  So, I want to take a little bit of a detour here.  When you think about products and services, do you think that they should be designed differently for men versus women, or for different minority groups?

Maria Klawe:        I think it depends on what the product or service is.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.

Maria Klawe:        I mean, it’s pretty clear that in fashion, that there do seem to be on average differences of what females want to buy versus males.  And, you know, people don’t seem to question the fact that a shirt or a blouse that’s designed for a female might look different from a shirt that’s designed for a male.  So, I mean, it definitely seems clear to me that we’re willing to accept that in some areas there may be gender differences.

I was in an interesting discussion with somebody who used to be an executive for a car company.  And, you know – and just made the comment that one of our students who had worked in design for that car company for a number of years had been very frustrated that any suggestion that was made that would be helpful to females, in terms of just making the car more usable, was completely rejected.  And, you know, his response was, we’re not going to make pink cars.  And then somebody else was sitting at the discussion with me, and she said, yes, but, you know, it would be really nice to have a reasonable place to put your purse when you get in the car, so it’s accessible.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.

Maria Klawe:        And so, you know, I think if we’re willing to accept that women and men dress differently; you know, carry different things with them; and therefore have different, you know, receptacles going with them, that we might need to believe that what – the optimal design for a male might be different from the optimal design – well, the optimal design for the average male might be different from the optimal design for the average female.

But the flip side of what I’m saying is that, you know, sometimes what you really want to be doing is to be designing things in as universal a way as possible.  In the sense that, whether it’s a male or a female, or somebody who is dyslexic, or, you know, other kinds of things, that this will be a design that they can adapt to being, you know, highly useful for whatever they want to do with it.

And so, my own inclination would be to – rather than to say, let’s design pink cars and blue cars, would be, let’s design cars that are ones that both women and men will find extremely, you know, functional to drive, attractive to drive—all of those kinds of things.  And so, having – keeping an open mind about the range of people who are going to use a particular product or service, seems like the right way to go.

Scott K. Wilder:    What about – you know, I know in reading about your past, in terms of – I see you’ve done a lot of work in, like, electronic game playing and the effects of gender on that.  What about the usage of technology by men versus women?

Maria Klawe:        Yes.  So, I mean, one thing we know for sure is that, on average, females like different things in games than what males like.  I mean, there are lots of females that like violence and sports, and all that kind of stuff, and lots of males that like puzzle games and so on, and Dance Dance Revolution and so on.  But if you just look at the averages, they have different interests.

They also tend to use them differently.  So, one of the things we know about young males and young females is that young males, whether, you know, young men or boys, are much more likely to get really, totally immersed in a particular game, and learn every single thing about the intricacies of that game.  So, whether it’s World of Warcraft, or StarCraft, or, you know, Final Fantasy – some type of thing – Assassin’s Creed, and so on –  you know, they tend to get completely – they get immersed in the culture and knowledge of that game, an extent that is rare for females.  You know, there are lots of specific females who are counterexamples to this, but on average that’s true.

So, females are more likely to play games socially.  They’re more likely to play games on mobile – on phones or on iPads than on, you know, game platforms like Xbox or PlayStation, and so on.  In terms of the amount of time that they spend on them, I think we’re – we don’t actually know a lot about that yet, because, you know, the fact that so many women are playing games on their phones and on iPads—my sense is, they often do it, you know, while they’re waiting for something to happen or, you know – and so on and so forth.  They’re less likely probably to go and spend three hours playing nonstop.  But they may be playing three hours over a day.

So, I think we know that they do use technology differently.  I think as technology evolves we’ll continue to, you know, learn more about the details of what those differences are.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.  One thing that struck me is that, you know, if more – and looking at technology – if more men are early adopters, you know, after a period of time, say with like social networks and mobile, women tend to be – you know, use those platforms more.  I find that really interesting.  I don’t know if…

Maria Klawe:        Yes.  So, I mean, is it really true that women were slower to go onto things like MySpace and Facebook than men?

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.

Maria Klawe:        Oh, that’s very interesting.  I didn’t know that.  I mean, my sense was that the take-up rate was roughly equal.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.  So, there’s actually an ACM article I read, from the ACM.org site, that talked about men being – and a lot of this stuff is a little outdated, right?  So, it’s probably early 2000 or the late 1900s {laughter}.

Maria Klawe:        1900s.

Scott K. Wilder:    You know.  So – but it did talk about men, you know, being early adopters to technology.  And so, then, thinking about, you know, the usage rates today, I find that really interesting, and I can..

Maria Klawe:        Yes.  Well, I mean, it’s certainly the case that men and – I mean, certainly for lots of technology, certainly early adopters for videogames, for computer games, for being on the Internet—those are certainly areas that – you know, where they were the early adopters.  I just didn’t think that it applied to social media.  But it is true that from since – I think it was in 2002—that was the year when females started spending more time on the Internet than males.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.

Maria Klawe:        And so, even in the cases where they are early adopters, you often see women coming on – and, you know, maybe it’s partly that there’s a critical mass phenomenon for women, that you tend to see it – you know, that maybe the growth curve is a different one for how quickly men start something versus how quickly women do.

Scott K. Wilder:    Yes.  Interesting.  So, just a few more quick questions.  So, if you were looking in your crystal ball in terms of the future of education and things like the classroom, the curriculum—how do you see that evolving and changing?

Maria Klawe:        Well, I think it – to some extent it depends on whether we’re talking about K to 12 versus higher education, and then professional development in still another category.  I think professional development for people who, you know, already have an undergraduate degree and are working in a job—I think that’s going to go just more and more online.  And probably with some version of – you know, some hybrid type of configurations.  But, you know, it seems pretty clear that that’s the direction that’s going to go.

For undergraduate education, I think we will end – we will still end up having a number – particularly the elite institutions that are highly residential, because they’re – it’s – if you can afford it, the kinds of growth that happens to young people in the four years of college, that really has to do with interactions among peers as – is probably as important as the curriculum that they actually learn.  And I have a feeling that that’s going to be slow to go away.  But I think that even within those kinds of environments, there will be more parts of the curriculum that are developed in various kinds of online ways.

K to 12, I’m – I sort of feel like the younger that you get, the more important it is that there is a teacher there.  But I think it is still true that a lot of the curriculum delivery will be moving to, you know, web-based delivery, and more blended environments where you – we’ll see students in classrooms spending some time on computers, either by themselves or in, you know, small groups or whatever; some time in direct instruction or coaching.

And, you know, that that will become more the norm, partly because, you know, there’s – there are a lot of things that you can do in terms of skills reinforcement in learning math or English or, you know, lots of other things, that are actually very well done on a computer.  It’s – if that’s the thing you’re using it for, you’re probably not going to have the best learning outcomes.  But when you mix this with blended environments where they’re getting some direct instructions, some group work, and some individual working on the computer, I think it’s a very good direction to go in terms of learning outcomes.

Scott K. Wilder:    How do you view, like, MIT’s “X” program, or the Khan Academy?

Maria Klawe:        So, the Khan Academy of Stanford, of course, was this new thing.  I think it’s very interesting and, you know, I think that the Khan Academy – I think it’s a great resource, but sort of in the same way as Wikipedia is a great resource.  You know, you can learn a lot of things in Wikipedia.  You probably wouldn’t structure your entire education around reading Wikipedia from one end to the other.

And I think the Khan Academy videos are helpful.  They’re great for parents who are, you know, trying to get up to speed on things to help their kids; they’re great on kids who are missing a certain concept—all of those kinds of things.  They’re probably great in the flipped classroom mode, where you have teachers who have their kids – students watching at home the night before, and then working on problems set in the classroom.  But that takes a particular – I mean, teachers need to – that’s not the kind of teaching that teachers learn to do, and so you need to train the teachers for them to be able to do that.

If I think about the MITx and what’s happening at Stanford with their online systems, it’s much more creating an infrastructure for, how can we actually allow people to have access to learning in a way that they wouldn’t normally have?  And the question is, to what extent would that enhance the on-campus experience, and to what extent will that be used to provide educational opportunities for people who don’t usually have access to them, and how effective will it be in each of those?  And I think we’re just – it’s way too early to predict.  But it’s an exciting time.  It’s incredibly interesting.

Scott K. Wilder:    Is it something that, you know, as the president of a liberal arts school, that you think about in terms of the impact it could have?  Or is it just too early in the game to worry about…?

Marie Klawe:        I’m not worried about it having an impact on the students who want to come to Harvey Mudd.  I mean, we are an amazingly high-touch – you know, we’re all about teamwork from day one, and it’s hard to reproduce that kind of experience in an online experience, at least today.  And I don’t think that will change much in the next decade.  Eventually it may change; but, you know, kids come to Mudd both for the incredible teaching but also for the incredible learning experience of being part of a very tight-knit learning community.  And, you know, I don’t see the demand for that going away.

The opportunity I see for Mudd is, we have this amazing introductory computer science course that has been phenomenally successful at attracting a lot of people, including females, who didn’t think they were interested in computer science, to actually major in computer science.  And I do wonder whether, you know, these kinds of approaches would allow us to make this more available for people at many other institutions who haven’t tried this approach.

And so, you know, that’s the direction I would think about going, if we were going to do something along those lines—is to think about, can we maybe share all of our course materials – you know, the exercises, the overheads, and everything like that, on a website.  But would, you know, doing lecture capture and making those lectures available in the kinds of formats that are being used at MIT and Stanford—would that be more helpful?  Probably yes.

Scott K. Wilder:    Probably also with the Claremont schools – I mean, there could be really interesting collaborative approach across the schools there.

Maria Klawe:        Yes, that’s true.

Scott K. Wilder:    So, just one – two more questions.  So, I always like to ask at the end, you know, if you think about the future of computing, work, education, whether it’s K through 12 or higher ed—who would you recommend that people read, or – you know, whether it’s individual or publications.  You know, what are some great resources that you’ve used, that you think are – that are accessible and people could access?

Maria Klawe:        Well, I certainly think that many of the ACM journals and conference publications are a good place to start, if you’re not at all knowledgeable about computer science.  Because, you know, I really do think that the digital library is an incredible resource and, you know, it’s wonderful for people to have the opportunity to use those.

 

In terms of reading more broadly than that, I have to admit, because I’m a computer scientist I tend to be plugged into what computer scientists read, and ACM would be my first stop for that.  And I don’t, you know, tend to read, you know, the general literature about these kinds of things.  So, I’m probably not a good source for suggestions.

Scott K. Wilder:    Okay.  And what are you reading that’s not computer science-related right now?

Maria Klawe:        Oh.  I’m reading Wolf Hall, which is a novel about Henry VIII and the creation of the Church of England, by Hilary Mantel.  I’m – I recently read a book that’s really interesting about evolutionary psychology called Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite.  And I don’t remember the author of the book, but it’s a totally great book.  Those are probably the – and then I read murder mysteries.  So, you know, I’m – right now I’m reading one by Lee Child.  So, you know – and I have just finished – I read – my son gives me a lot of fantasy and science fiction to read, and so, you know, typically I will either be about to read one of those books or have just finished one of them.  He was actually the person who gave me Wolf Hall to read, so…

Scott K. Wilder:    And do you read traditional books or you do Kindle-ized?

Maria Klawe:        Oh.  Well, if it comes from my son it’s always a traditional book, because he likes to read traditional books.  So, you know, it’s always – you know, it’s a hand-me-down from him.  If it comes from my daughter, it’s always, you know, Kindle application, either for the Kindle or on the iPad, or Kindle Fire, or something like that.

Scott K. Wilder:    What does that say about men and women?

Maria Klawe:        Those are her preferred ways of reading.

Scott K. Wilder:    What does that say about men and women {laughter}?

Maria Klawe:        Not much, I have to say {laughter}.

Scott K. Wilder:    Anyway, I really – I know it’s Friday night, and I really want to thank you for your time.  This has been fascinating.  And…

Maria Klawe:        Likewise.

Scott K. Wilder:    Thank you.  And I’ll send you a followup email.  But thank you again, and really appreciate your time.  Once again, this is Scott Wilder with Maria Klawe, president of Harvey Mudd University, and this has been a segment for the Future of Work.  Thank you.

 

THE END