In this episode of Real Talk, KJK Student & Athlete Defense Attorneys Susan Stone and Kristina Supler are joined by Eric Gibbs, President of academic integrity software tool Ouriginal, to discuss the complex nature of detecting plagiarism and promoting academic integrity. They also discuss the impact of the pandemic on cheating, the issue of academic file sharing sites and the opportunities for parents and educators to create teachable moments with their students.
Susan Stone:
Welcome back to Real Talk with Susan Stone and Kristina Supler. We’re full-time moms and attorneys bringing our student defense legal practice to light with real candid conversations. Today’s topic is cheating. Kristina, when we started our practice and dealt with misconduct cases we always had maybe one cheating case a year, but oh my gosh we’re getting to the point where it seems like we’re flooded with calls and we have to have a podcast talking about this issue because it can’t be a coincidence.
Kristina Supler:
Yeah, it’s been so interesting to see the rise of cheating in really plagiarism cases, especially. I mean, I think we’ve all sort of settled into life in the pandemic and working remotely, students doing distance learning, but wow. I think with students working on computers, it’s been really interesting to see a surge in these academic integrity cases. I think schools also appear to be more adept at sort of being wise to what students may or may not be doing with this issue of cheating and plagiarism.
Susan Stone:
Yeah, I agree and it also seems like there’s very little appetite to engage in an open conversation with students because, what’s going to lead us to the next guest, once a school uses a plagiarism or cheating detection software, for them, it’s a predetermined you’re responsible and we want to expel you. So with that in mind, Kristina, why don’t you introduce our first guest?
Kristina Supler:
Yes, we are pleased to be joined today by Eric Gibbs. Eric is president of Ouriginal, which is a software that helps schools detect issues with students in academic integrity. Eric has worked in this, I guess what you call, education technology industry for over 20 years now. He’s extremely familiar with the software and the space and we’re pleased to have Eric with us today to talk about our Ouriginal. Thanks for joining us, Eric.
Eric Gibbs:
Thank you very much, Susan and Kristina. Look forward to the conversation.
Susan Stone:
And there’s a lot to talk about here, Eric. First of all, tell us about your company, and we’re calling you a plagiarism detection software. Are we right in framing it that way? Give us a little background first.
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah, so Ouriginal is an academic integrity tool that assists institutions, could be a higher education college, university, or a K-12 district or high school. It really assists them in identifying or utilizing the tool for written work. What we’re assisting them in doing is, we’ve really spent the last 20 years, assisting them with plagiarism prevention efforts. I said academic integrity but really the last 20 years we’ve spent on the plagiarism prevention effort.
I don’t say plagiarism detection, because I’m here to kind of demystify that with your listeners. There’s no such thing as plagiarism detection. So students today, they get extremely nervous when they submit their artifact, their essay, their personal narrative, their discussion board post. They submit it to an ether, right? Black box. They expect to get a similarity score, this number back. They get that number back and they actually think that’s some type of plagiarized score, and that’s just not the case. It was something that was created 20 years ago and that’s just, unfortunately not the case. So maybe we can kind of flesh out kind what these plagiarism prevention tools or text similarity detection tools do, and how they’ve evolved to really support institution’s academic integrity initiatives.
Susan Stone:
I agree because I think that just because your answer is similar to someone else’s does not necessarily mean you cheated. Don’t you agree Kristina? Because we’ve seen it.
Kristina Supler:
Yeah. I mean, I would say in our practice, we have a nationwide law practice where we represent students at colleges and universities across the country. Look, I’ll be honest, we’ve had students who just flagrantly cheated, but then we’ve also had a lot of students who get caught in this gray area, where perhaps it’s a collaboration course and software flagged an essay and then before you know it, the student’s hopes and dreams of medical school have been dashed because of some problem set in a challenging science class. And so, here we are. But I guess before we sort of talk about the software, I want to back up and. At the beginning we talked about the pandemic and the rise as of these academic integrity cases that Susan and I have seen in our practice. And I’m just curious, Eric, what are your thoughts? Do you think that in today’s day and age of technology, the temptation for students to cheat is greater than it used to be? I mean, what would you say about that and how these numbers for cheating cases have risen through the pandemic?
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah, I mean, I think certainly the pandemic has complicated things. So with respect to education, the global pandemic has challenged the very basic idea of instruction, attendance, testing, funding and certainly the role of technology. And that technology is, if you look at it, it’s classrooms and it’s also online. So for schools and institutions that were delivering courses online, they were completely ahead of this massive learning and migration curve. For those that were strictly face-to-face, holy cow. Come March and April of last year, welcome to online learning. And this was something that wasn’t just an introduction. This was a forced push into remote, online learning. So now you’re having to learn not only video lecture. You’re having to learn about online pedagogical course design. You’re having to learn about new technology. It really was unfair both to two stakeholders: the instructor and also the students. So there’s some students just are not equipped to actually learn online. Let’s be honest. And so that-
Susan Stone:
It’s not the same.
Eric Gibbs:
No.
Susan Stone:
I just want to be very clear. I do not think you’re ever going to get the same experiences being in a room, and that energy.
Eric Gibbs:
So yeah. So Susan, there’s a way for us to actually bridge this, and so with good pedagogical course design, good technology and good coaching, you can actually kind of merge the two and get closer. We’re just not there yet. But with respect to academic integrity – so this is kind of the underlying theme that we’re talking about. If you skim the headlines in any education publication, and it really doesn’t even have to be education, it could be a major news source. You could potentially conclude that cheating cases are tipping the scales. Both remote and online learning has opened the floodgates to massive cheating scandals, right? I would argue that really that a magnifying glass has simply been lowered to expose an issue that’s been going on for years now, and it’s just not its scale. This is something that we see at Ouriginal which we assist individuals, as I said, with academic integrity initiatives with technology.
Again, it’s kind of that one pillar of the three. So, technology is not going to solve all of your issues. It’s good course design, it’s that coaching and mentoring and then the technology is a deterrence, let’s be honest. Here’s the issue. If you’re exposing this and it’s already been there and now you’re pushing every single student in every single course now online, you have this massive issue, right? The massive scale. So you would expect to see more cheating issues and cheating scandals to come to the surface. So I say that you’re just now starting to see, at scale, stuff that was already going on prior to the pandemic.
Susan Stone:
Well, we know that’s true. Look, even back when I went to school, there were sororities, fraternities, sports teams that had paper files where you could get an old test and Kristina, we’re seeing-
Kristina Supler:
But Susan, you never looked at those materials, right?
Susan Stone:
Of course not. You know why I never looked? Because my parents never put pressure on me to get the A. They just thought, “Eh, whatever you get, you get.” And I tell my own kids that. Just do your best. But that begs the question. Now the file shares are in Dropboxes, right?
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah. We’ve really kind of crossed the chasm to kind of normalizing behaviors of these temptations to cheat. So it’s more now if the rest of the class is doing it, can I risk not doing it? You touched on it, Susan, and this is something that I’ve been talking about for a while. And I really talk about it kind of as this digital sharing economy. It’s these academic file sharing sites. So is it different than the times of the cliff notes or even kind of the, the essays in the sororities or fraternities? I actually think it is, this is more serious and it’s at larger scale.
Susan Stone:
You know what, even in law school, Kristina, did you use nutshells?
Kristina Supler:
On occasion, but the whole idea of rushing to the law library and finding cases and books and ripping them out and all of that, that didn’t happen. But it certainly was the beginning of the whole study support economy, I guess, if you will. Since then, it’s just remarkable all these, I don’t know, third party sources for students. Let me ask you this, Eric these unauthorized file sharing sites, Susan and I have had countless numbers of these cases and, again, it’s not just fraternities and sororities, it’s sports teams-
Susan Stone:
No.
Kristina Supler:
-it’s science club, you name it.
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah.
Kristina Supler:
I mean, all the kids, there’s various student groups doing it.
Susan Stone:
Yeah, groups of friends create file share.
Kristina Supler:
That’s right. That’s right. What, for our parent listeners, what should parents know about these sites and what conversations should they be having with their students about the danger of accessing these materials?
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah. I mean, I think this poses a real risk to academic integrity, but it also, this is a personal integrity issue as well. And I think that parents need to know this as, and my wife and I have a junior in high school, and this is a common conversation. Has been a conversation now for several years at our dinner table. I think, unfortunately we find ourselves in a whack-a-mole scenario where many of these websites are out there, and so the International Center for Academic Integrity has identified about 670 of these academic file sharing sites.
Susan Stone:
Wow.
Eric Gibbs:
And you said that some of these are unlawful. Some of these are publicly traded companies. Let’s be honest here, billion dollar companies that have been funded by some major capital here.
Susan Stone:
Eric, is that different than like Chegg where you can get homework help?
Eric Gibbs:
You know, I’d prefer, Susan, not to kind of go into different companies. I think that this is one of those things where individuals will not have a hard time finding findings specific companies or resources in this.
Susan Stone:
No, but what I’m asking you is a different question and I apologize if I framed it wrong. Companies that assist with homework are different and can be legitimately used versus a file share. Wouldn’t you agree?
Eric Gibbs:
I think that… I don’t know, Susan. I think you have to look at this and where I want to go with this is, I think university and school administrators need to be more familiar with the unauthorized use of the professor or teacher’s course content. And this is the bigger issue. This gives magnitude of hundreds of millions of artifacts. And these artifacts that I talk about – quizzes, lab manuals, essays, exams – that are in current circulation that are sent to these file sharing sites, right? So this is the Napster of academia. So students actually are solicited or send files to some of these file sharing companies or sites, or however you want to describe them. Then these companies then can then sell this information, right? So they’re sending back then the answers from the students that have actually submitted. Students then will get a token for future submissions. Essentially, it’s just, I don’t want to say a scheme, but you basically get credits to be able to actually create additional solicitations.
Susan Stone:
What do you mean by credit? Is that money?
Eric Gibbs:
It’s basically you create an account, you then can get two additional submissions, or you can use utilize two papers. I’m going to use the word papers, because it’s reflective of what, at Ouriginal, we could actually then deter. You get two credits, I could then say, okay, I’m going to actually take or search for my psychology papers. If I put in my business paper or my business homework, then I’m going to get two more credits, right? So I can then take now two more credits to go back and look for my chemistry work now that I want to look for. And then if I put in then my econ homework, then I’m going to get three more credits. So it’s just this continual scheme of the more content that I put in, the more content then I can actually pull out. So this-
Susan Stone:
Oh my gosh.
Eric Gibbs:
Again, I empathize with both students and instructors. So on the instructors side, if we go back to the three pillars, good course design. For an instructor to create good, high quality content, they have to take hours. I mean, don’t create a multiple choice question or assessment.
Susan Stone:
Exactly.
Eric Gibbs:
That it’s going to take minutes, if not seconds, for students to be able to share. Create something that’s going to take very… It’s something that’s going to take critical thinking skills or something that’s non-traditional. Go out and require them to actually video themselves doing a personal narrative, or do something… a vlog, right? As soon as that gets submitted, that question, to one of these academic file sharing sites, that immediately is gone and you can change it around but what happens to that intellectual property of the instructor that now is actually submitted to the academic file sharing site? It immediately is then submitted to all of those students that now are actually sharing this, right? Then I empathize with that instructor that has taken a couple hours, four or five hours, that they’re trying to do their best work. Again, to avoid the multiple choice or the easy way out.
So, this is where you don’t want to normalize the behavior that’s trending with that file sharing or that study smarter study quicker. Move away from the model that rewards attainment of degrees that one could identify proves the skills would be highly desirable from the workforce. So here’s the issue. The International Center for Academic Integrity said that where are those programs that cheat have integrity issues the most? It’s business, it’s engineering, it’s nursing. Those were the top three. So structurally do I want to drive across a bridge if I know that it’s compromised engineering? Nursing, I get into a critical car crash. Do I want to go to the ICU if I… This is where it’s not just about my individual class, it’s this class that actually then builds upon other classes that also then builds upon skills, that builds upon competencies, that builds upon a degree, that this is a bigger issue for the institution that then also is then granting this degree or granting this badge or granting this certificate.
Susan Stone:
Right. Eric, I want to just challenge you on something and circle back and loop back at your beginning story of once you put your paper through the software people are scared. And I can tell you from representing some students who, in my soul and heart, I believe, look we’re never there, that I believe did not cheat. Kristina and I, we have kids who just tell us their darkest and deepest, but we have kids that will cry and say they did their own work. And we are concerned that once they’re labeled and that’s on their transcript, those students don’t get to go to med school or graduate school. Do you believe in your heart of hearts… Do you agree with us that many innocent students who don’t access those files get caught in this web?
Eric Gibbs:
They could. I think there’s a difference also between a plagiarism prevention tool and utilizing a tool that’s an academic file sharing tool that we’re talking about. So a plagiarism prevention tool, like an Ouriginal, all we’re doing is we’re matching where the content’s coming from. So to give you an example, like with Ouriginal, we’re matching, and that’s the reason why I don’t call it a plagiarism detection tool. That had a misnomer from the very get go from some of these early plagiarism prevention tools, or text similarity detection. So when a student puts in a two page paper, what a tool like Ouriginal does, is it matches archived internet sources. So for us, it’s 20 years worth. It might look at Wikipedia, Discovery, so we’re constantly crawling and indexing and archiving sources. Academic and scholarly journals, and then student materials as well.
So then what we do is then we provide to the evaluator, as well as the student, then the student can see where the citations are, or I’m sorry, the content. Essentially then, the evaluator makes the decision of, is this plagiarized or is this not? So we are only showing where there’s similarity within that content. So the evaluator at the end of that actual submission is making the end judgment. So that’s very different from somebody actually taking a test, a physical test from one of these academic file sharing sites, and actually from last semester, that’s exactly the same within a learning management system and completing it in 8.7 minutes. Knowing that it’s going to take you at least 72 minutes to actually complete. There’s different metrics that you can actually track upon. I think there’s many data points that you have to consider, to make judgment calls. But for us, all we are doing is providing information to an evaluator to make a decision.
Kristina Supler:
So that makes me think though, I know Eric, preparing for this podcast today, doing some reading and listening on the internet. Susan, Eric said on another podcast, students sometimes match internet information up to 70% and I think that it sort of… It begs the question, thinking about how academic integrity at times is a two-way street. I think it warrants consideration of how professors test students.
Susan Stone:
I agree, Kristina. Do you think it promotes laziness when they don’t change the questions?
Eric Gibbs:
Susan, that’s a loaded question. I’m not going to go down the- [crosstalk 00:21:39].
Susan Stone:
I told you!
Eric Gibbs:
I’m not going the laziness route.
Susan Stone:
We have to. Our show, Eric, our show. Come on, let’s talk about this.
Eric Gibbs:
I think what I’ll do is I’ll pivot around the understanding of the tool. Let’s use that 70% similarity score. So, if we talk about how the tool works, as a student submits the two page paper, after they submit that two page paper, they get the paper back and they see that the score is 70%. So you can’t actually go out, in a professional development or as Ouriginal comes out and trains the faculty, trains the institution, we don’t go out and say, “Anything over or 40%, there’s room for concern. It could be plagiarized.” It’s always about the individual content. If I write a paper on what I did on my holiday last March, and I get a score of 70%, and I wrote about going to Paris on March 10th and we visited the Eiffel Tower and my aunt Mary Lou is the one that went at 3:12 to the Eiffel tower. If it’s 70%, we have a serious issue because there’s not very many Mary Lou’s that went on March 10th at 3:12 to the Eiffel Tower, because there shouldn’t be that much similarity and that much… Now we’re talking about collusion, right? That much match.
But if we’re talking about a paper on Romeo, or let me say the War of 1812. We know the battles, we know the individual key facts. You would expect a two page paper on the War of 1812, and if it’s even a specific battle, you would expect to see probably a very high similarity score, because there’s only so much personal statement that you can actually put in there to make it unique. So you are going to see a high score and if you’re putting cite quotes around it or citations in the paper, those citations are going to match and then that’s also going to then match other sources. Which would then again, create a higher similarity score. So you would expect to see maybe a higher score than that maybe that’s around that 70% score. So, it’s based upon the individual content of the actual paper.
Susan Stone:
So really what you’re saying is it’s not necessarily the professor, because some coursework and some tests can only be posited a certain way.
Eric Gibbs:
That’s correct. And so that’s where there’s a misunderstanding. That’s the reason why there’s not a plagiarism detection tool out there. I can’t say that it’s been plagiarized if it’s been properly cited, right? That’s the reason why it’s a text similarity detection. It’s matching the individual text from a scholarly journal from Cengage Learning or from a specific article. So we’re just exposing that to the individual evaluator. And from a teaching and learning perspective, Kristina and Susan, what we’re doing is we’re now giving the student the ability to go back in there and to make sure it’s properly cited. If it’s not properly cited, then that’s another issue that the student should be able to go back in and actually change that.
Kristina Supler:
I think this issue of proper citation, I find it interesting to think about citation in the context of collaboration courses. And I know Susan, I mean, we’ve had countless cases where the professors state in the syllabus, the students can collaborate with one another, but then fast forward, our student submits his or her essay and gets flagged for an academic integrity violation. And those cases really, I know I get so frustrated and I think you feel the same way, Susan.
Susan Stone:
Yeah, I do. I really appreciate the way Eric is kind of framing things from both sides, but again, when you work with people… I mean, I even know sometimes you and I can complete each other’s sentences.
Kristina Supler:
Sure, that’s right. So, I mean, it begs the question, Eric. Is it fair to use this software in courses that allow for collaboration? I mean, what are your thoughts on that?
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah, I mean, I think there are ways to utilize the tool extremely effective for collaboration. I actually want to backtrack a little bit on the citation as a sign. Again, going back to my son, having him, he’s absolutely horrible at citing tools, or citing and referencing. I think part of it, especially given the fact he’s a junior in high school, it’s frustrating because they just… It’s the same type of premor or type of resources that we received back in school. I mean, if we want to talk about good technology, there’s ways to actually have technology just cite the tool, cite it for you, right? I mean, we’re to a point now that those efficiency tools are already there for you. I’m still just amazed that we’re still going back to the days of old where proper citations should be required of the student. That was my soapbox.
Moving on to collaboration. I think there are ways… I think it’s good to be able to have students, and within specific learning management systems, there are peer feedback and peer reviewed capabilities that allow the students to actually utilize the software, such as an Ouriginal, to utilize it to be able to see… A. How other students have actually cited the content, provide feedback on that as an intermediary step for the instructor. So it actually is almost like a buffer before the final submission. We’re big proponents of that. We think that actually is a helpful teaching and learning moment for the individual student. We think it’s a good pedagogical tool. It’s very time consuming. It works in a 50 student class. How do you actually incorporate that in a 2,000 person class? It’s a little bit harder, but there are ways to actually utilize the tool. Again, through technological solutions through the learning management system.
Susan Stone:
Look, we like collaboration. I know that Kristina and I pride ourselves when we’re working on a case, that we deliver what we think is a different strategy for clients because we challenge each other and because we collaborate. So I would hate for collaboration to end in the classroom.
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah.
Kristina Supler:
Also, it’s interesting to hear you talk about how one of the questions we were actually, when Susan and I were brainstorming on what do we really want to ask him? Something that we were thinking about was… Okay, how does this software… You understand how it promotes academic integrity and helps professors and institutions, but at the end of the day, how does it really facilitate these teachable moments as opposed to the “gotcha” moments? And you’ve touched on that a little bit, but I’d be curious to hear more because I think so often, for students, again, there’s this fear that there’s this software now, professors are getting lazy, TAs aren’t reading my papers. They just upload it to software, I get flagged, all hope is lost, and what do I do if I’m not in a situation where my parents can hire Susan and Kristina to help me? So, I mean, what could you say about that more so that students don’t have this fear?
Susan Stone:
We’re going back to the fear question.
Eric Gibbs:
Yeah, I know.
Susan Stone:
And it’s asking it three times.
Eric Gibbs:
I truly empathize with students and this is something that even from a company perspective, our business model is we license our software to the institution. So I want to be very transparent with your listeners that our business model is we do not sell to individual students. We do not license individual faculty members. We sell to the institution. So we’re supporting their institutional academic integrity initiatives.
My heart is with the students. So I want to be crystal clear here, and maybe to set the stage and to give your listeners a way to understand this. Go to Twitter and type in plagiarism detection tool or similarity report. You can actually see when students actually submit their paper, the fear of God coming into the student’s mind when they actually submit that paper. They don’t understand that the percentage that they’re getting to, and this goes back to questions prior, they don’t understand the percentage that they’re getting, that 72% or 95%, is not a plagiarism score. They have no clue.
And what does that mean? It means that there’s not been proper expectations set at. Even though, and so this is where it’s kind of ironic, and I kind of… I’m going to chuckle a little because plagiarism prevention tools have been used in their high schools, they’ve been now used in their college courses. They’ve been exposed to these types of tools forever. So that just tells you how long, kind of the ball’s been going downhill and misinformed. It’s not a plagiarism detection tool, but they’ve submitted that and they have the fear of God when they hit that button and they get that 72%. And so you will have some paranoid students that try to remove a couple of words, change a couple of paragraphs to get that 72% down to 58%. Is that a teaching and learning moment? Absolutely not. That is absolutely the worst thing that a student can do to try to game the system. And is it a good use of time? No, it’s absolutely horrible. That is the worst thing that you can ever get out of a tool like a plagiarism prevention tool.
So how do you actually inform that? It’s going back and re-modernizing your academic integrity tool. So for all those Directors of Academic Integrity, we have an annual conference with the International Center for Academic Integrity. We have those conversations. We’re having those conversations to try to better inform and put the student voice first. Those conversations are happening. And so we started off this conversation of how do you actually get away from the one strike and out policy? Institutions are using this as a teachable moment. I think we’re moving to that.
Momentum is changing and one of the individuals that I believe, Dr. Trisha Bertram Gallant from the University of California, San Diego. She’s an outspoken, an individual person first and foremost, but she’s outspoken to try to move this into… Make it a teachable moment. Why should one plagiarism case when you mis-cited it, be out of the University of Missouri Columbia or out of Ole’ Miss? That doesn’t make sense. Maybe it made sense 20 years ago. It doesn’t make sense today. So, I’ll be on record for that. But what it does make sense is make it a teachable moment. Have those conversations and let’s revisit and modernize. I’m going to use that word again, modernize our academic integrity.
Susan Stone:
You know, Eric, I love what you’re saying, and I hope institutions move to that model. Sadly, by the time when a student calls us, they’re obviously not using that model and our students are looking at their whole academic career being compromised and threatened. It’s a difficult place, so we hope that any educational institution that might have Directors of Conduct listening to this podcast might think about your model and reach out to you, Eric. And until then, we’re here for you should things go wrong.
Eric Gibbs:
Well, Susan also let’s think about on the magnitude. I mean, plagiarism case versus the academic file sharing sites that we’re talking about. It’s different as night and day. Now there… I’ll also, I do want to preface and there is the caveat. If you’re buying a paper or if you’re completely copying and pasting, there is a difference. So there are-
Susan Stone:
We are on the same page. We are not talking about people who go in and copy and paste.
Eric Gibbs:
Right.
Susan Stone:
We’re not talking about those cases, I think. And that, that is a great clarification. We’re trying to deal with the more nuanced issue here.
Eric Gibbs:
Right.
Susan Stone:
But thank you for that clarification, because in those cases, students should be put through the process and disciplined appropriately. Which could be anything from suspension or expulsion.
Eric Gibbs:
And the last thing that I would mention is I think transparency, as we probably all would agree, makes sense, in this conversation. If we know academic file sharing sites are an issue, it should be made… in this whole conversation about modernizing our academic integrity approach, it should be put in the academic integrity policy. So if we know a specific academic file sharing site is a major player, put it in your academic integrity policy. Full disclosure. You can’t use this tool. You can’t use this website. Therefore, there’s no issue. So if you get caught and you, you utilize the tool, it’s stated, there’s no issue, right? Therefore there should be no confusion on what is right and wrong.
Susan Stone:
You know, what? What about just having kids sit in a classroom with a pencil and a piece of paper and no computer and take a test?
Kristina Supler:
Imagine that.
Eric Gibbs:
I think so too. I think those days might be over Susan, though.
Susan Stone:
Oh my gosh.
Kristina Supler:
Well, I thank you for joining us, Eric. I think you’ve given us a lot to think about and I think you’ve provided a lot of valuable information for parents, as well, to reflect on. And conversations for parents to have with their students to stay out of trouble and just think about good academic habits as a whole. To our listeners, thank you for joining us today, Real Talk with Susan and Kristina. If you enjoyed this episode, please do subscribe to our show. Never miss an episode and leave a review so that other people can find the content we share here as well. You can also follow us on Instagram, just search our handle @StoneSupler, and for more resources, visit us online at studentdefense.kjk.com. Thank you for being a part of our Real Talk Community today and we will see you next time.