Burck Smith, founder and executive chairman of StraighterLine, has been a pioneering force in education technology for nearly three decades. In this enticing EdTech Mentor conversation, Burck reflects on his journey to disrupt the higher education model, challenging traditional institutions by offering alternative, affordable pathways for students. With 40-50,000 students now enrolled in StraighterLine's courses, Burck reveals how online learning is reshaping higher education at a fraction of the cost. Hosted by Laureano Díaz, CSO of 27zero, this illuminating discussion explores the future of higher education, innovation and lessons from the front line. Read on for the full conversation!
Sure. Happy to be here. Yeah, let’s step into the way-back machine. I’ve been involved in this space for a long time. In the early '90s, I became fascinated with the Internet, even before it became mainstream. I was particularly curious about how it would impact society, which eventually led to my focus on education. With a background in public policy, I got a master’s degree and focused on the intersection of education and technology. I was heavily influenced by disruption theory, particularly by Clayton Christensen, who was coming out with groundbreaking ideas at the time. It was clear to me that technology could solve some of the big problems in higher education, especially around cost. Online courses are cheap to deliver, but they weren’t cheaper for students—so why wasn’t the system adapting? I’ve been working on that question for nearly 30 years now.
Well, when markets are disrupted, the speed of transformation usually depends on how efficient the market is. Industries like retail (think Amazon), media (Netflix and Blockbuster), and music (Spotify and Apple Music) changed rapidly in the 2000s. However, higher education is a consumer market that's distorted by government subsidies and regulations, making it slower to change. I believe we’re now seeing K-12 education starting to transform, albeit slowly. StraighterLine was one of the first to scale alternative pathways to college credit, and that helped pave the way for the growing alternative credit sector, which is expanding faster than traditional college enrollment.
SMARTHINKING, which I started in 1999, was more focused on higher education. It was an online tutoring company, one of the first, offering 24/7 tutoring for subjects like math, chemistry, and physics. Colleges would purchase hours of tutoring for their students. The big idea was to redesign academic labor—by outsourcing the Q&A function to tutors, we could allow asynchronous courses to feel more interactive. SMARTHINKING grew over the years and was eventually acquired by Pearson in 2010. It laid the groundwork for StraighterLine, which spun off as a separate company in 2008.
Honestly, not much has changed in terms of flexibility. Some institutions have made strides, but they’re constrained by regulations, especially when it comes to how they’re accredited. Colleges can’t offer courses on a monthly subscription basis or offer small pieces of a degree without running into problems with Title IV funding. That’s why alternative providers like StraighterLine have been able to innovate—we aren’t bound by those regulations, and we can offer more affordable and flexible options. But colleges? They’re still offering online courses at the same or higher prices than in-person classes, which is ridiculous given how much cheaper it is to deliver them.
As predicted, we’re seeing small, lesser-known private colleges struggle more and more. The alternative credit space has grown significantly, and while colleges haven’t changed much, the market around them is evolving. There’s increasing pressure on the ROI of traditional degree programs, and students are starting to look for more efficient, affordable ways to get the education they need. It’s a slow erosion, but it’s happening.
Exactly, and it’s not that institutions can’t change—it’s that they’re structured in a way that makes it difficult. We’ve been talking about disruption in higher ed for decades, but the process is incremental. The shift is happening, but we’re still in the midst of it.
There's a lot of talk, but it’s hard to measure the actual impact. You hear buzzwords like skills-based learning, credentials, micro-credentials, scaffolding—these are all ways of exploring how to change the "bundle" of education. Colleges, which traditionally offer expensive degree programs, are trying to market these as combinations of smaller bundles. But that’s not how financial aid works or how colleges operate under Title IV regulations. While there’s a lot of conversation about it, the reality isn’t as significant. Colleges still bundle degrees together, often in ways supported by outside providers.
Exactly. I have three kids in college now, and we’re seeing a shift in how we look at the degree. It used to be an all-encompassing experience, serving many functions—learning, gaining skills, preparing for a job, and personal growth, especially for the 18-22 age group. For those students, the traditional college experience is still valuable. But for others, like adult learners looking to move up in their careers, they don’t need the full college experience. This change in the "bundle" is reshaping the way we think about education, and it has significant downstream effects on how colleges operate and are financed.
It’s a mix of art, science, and luck. I’ve been fortunate enough to get the big things right, even if I got smaller things wrong. For example, SMARTHINKING and StraighterLine were built on the idea that online courses are cheaper to deliver, so students should pay less. Colleges weren’t interested in awarding credit for cheaper courses from other providers, so we had to create incentives—like listing colleges that accepted StraighterLine credits as destinations for new students. We positioned StraighterLine as a solution to the high cost of education, particularly for adult learners, and that’s where we got it right.
We expected the early adopters of StraighterLine credits to be adult-serving colleges, and we were right to a degree. But what surprised us was how slowly public and community colleges accepted third-party credits. Many accept StraighterLine credits but won’t openly advertise it. Public colleges act more like cartels—politically driven and funded heavily by government subsidies—so they behave differently from private institutions.
I stepped down as CEO of StraighterLine in 2022, so now, as Chair of the Board, I’m less involved in day-to-day operations. What keeps me engaged are the networks I’ve built over the years, attending conferences, and staying connected with the EdTech community. At the board level, it’s more advisory work and less direct accountability, which is both a relief and something I miss.
There are a few that we’ve always made a point to attend, like WCET, UPCEA, CAEL, and ACE. These conferences focus on online education, adult learners, and credentials, which were niche topics before but are now mainstream. In this industry, relationships and conferences are key. You build connections by showing up, talking to people, and being accountable. It’s a slow-moving market, and that kind of groundwork takes time and effort.
I’ve been fortunate to have some amazing people join early on. You never know how it will turn out until after the fact, but a key trait, especially in this space, is being mission-driven. It takes a lot to weather the ups and downs of a startup. Even with successful exits, there are dark days when you think it won’t work out. People motivated by the mission can push through those moments. Having smart, engaged people by your side, especially those who’ve been with you from the start, is invaluable.
There are plenty to choose from. One example is something we tried at StraighterLine called "Professor Direct." The idea was that professors could layer their own input on top of our courses and attract students. It didn’t work because most professors didn’t want to market their own courses. We also tried creating a “synthetic degree” using StraighterLine courses and critical thinking tests—another idea that was too early for its time and didn’t move the needle.
It’s more art than science. You have to judge how much money and effort you’ve already put into it. If you’ve invested more, you might give it a longer leash. But if you don’t see early interest or results, you need to shut it down and move on. The key is not to throw good money after bad, but every startup tries things that don’t work. The important part is getting the big themes right, and being humble enough to adapt.
It was a bit of both. In 2009, there was an article in Washington Monthly titled “College for $99?” That catapulted us into a new level of media attention. But there was groundwork behind that. I’d been in the space for a long time, written white papers, and built up a credible intellectual story behind the company. We had courses, some colleges agreeing to credit, and a precedent of success with SMARTHINKING. The media attention aligned with the moment, but it wasn’t random. And when traditional higher ed attacked us, we didn’t back down. We stood by our principles of offering lower-cost education, which kept the conversation going.
Exactly. We didn’t just weather the controversy—we fought back. We believed in lowering costs for students, and colleges weren’t doing that. That created the story. As a startup, we weren’t risk-averse, and we stood by what we thought was right. It’s important to have humility, but also to push when you know your solution is valuable. In education, disruption takes time, and the market is slower to react than many think.
You have to do your homework. Many ideas to "fix" education lack a real understanding of how the system works. If you don’t have a strong foundation or understanding of the complexities, you're not going to influence the industry meaningfully. Even if you don’t shift everyone to your model, you create pressure that can influence change. It's important to influence the industry, not just attack the establishment.
Honestly, the most effective approach we found was relationship-building—showing up at conferences, meeting people, and building connections. It might sound old-school, but it works in a space like education. Today’s marketing environment, with social media and platforms like LinkedIn, is clearly important, but I still believe that constructing relationships remains key. Education is a slow-moving, political space, and real progress happens through long-term connections.
There are a few. Western Governors University stands out. They’re one of the largest colleges now and are still doing competency-based learning at scale, which is impressive. Another is REACH University, doing interesting work with apprenticeships and teacher education. I also see a lot of talk about experiential learning, apprenticeships, and internships, but nothing at significant scale yet. Historically, schools like Northeastern and Drexel have been pioneers in this space, but the main challenge is public policy. Employers often don’t have enough incentive to take on underprepared employees and train them, which is something colleges wish would change.
I think we’ll continue to see experimentation, but it will remain small scale until there’s a public policy shift. In my view, this will likely require reallocating funds from higher ed into internships and apprenticeships, which higher ed institutions won’t like. This is where the dynamics of change get tough—it’s hard to push meaningful reforms when incumbents resist if it threatens their funding.
I think a few big trends will continue to unfold, driven by technology. Technology changes industries, but it requires competition to really shift things. The more subsidized a market, the slower the change. We’re about 15 years into the transformation of higher ed, and it’ll take another 15 years for these changes to fully play out. Small private colleges will continue to struggle and either close or merge. Enrollment may stabilize, but with demographic shifts, it’s expected to decline further. The traditional 18-to-22-year-old college experience will still have value, but everything around it—courses, certifications, and skills—will increasingly be done faster and cheaper by other providers. I also foresee a reevaluation of government subsidies in higher ed, with cheaper online options eventually being subsidized similarly to traditional colleges.
At 20, I wasn’t thinking about any of this. Maybe by 27, I was. My advice would be if something inspires you or you want to get into a particular field, start talking, writing, or engaging with the community now. Join Twitter or LinkedIn, start a podcast—get your ideas out there and connect with people in the field. That will help you build relationships, hone your ideas, and gain respect. It’s important to be part of the conversation early on.
It really boils down to debt. If you can graduate with little or no debt, the traditional college experience is fantastic. But that’s not always the case today. I’m not advocating for universal college or expanding subsidies. However, I think we should rethink how we structure the college experience. For instance, why does it need to be four years? Could it be three years to lower the cost? Some countries already do this. We could also explore a year or two of universal service before college as a way to balance the system. The ROI for college today is different from what it was 35 years ago when I went, but the conversation around reforming higher ed needs to evolve.
