Peter Attia (4:48)

Joe, thank you so much for making time to come over today. It's nice once in a while to have a guest who is local and doesn't have to travel so far.

Joe Limont (4:55)

It's great. I super appreciate it.

Peter Attia (4:57)

People are probably wondering, like, how does this tie into health and medicine? And this is a topic that's a little bit outside of that, but really it's not. Where we're ultimately going to go is education. And you can't have a great system of health and medicine if you're not educating kids today. The people that are learning today are going to be the ones taking care of us. So I think everybody should have a vested interest in this process. Of course, also, many people listening have kids across various spectrums of learning. But I think Before I get into that, your story is just so interesting. And I know you don't really like telling your story, because I know this, because I know you so well and all you want to do is talk about the work, but I'm going to force you to tell your story a little bit. So where'd you grow up?

Joe Limont (5:35)

I was born in Minnesota and I moved around every couple years, mostly up and down the east Coast. My dad worked for General Electric and wherever they had a factory, whatever town, we'd move there.

Peter Attia (5:46)

You obviously did very well in high school and you wound up at Stanford. So what did you major in?

Joe Limont (5:51)

I would have been. I majored in econ. I did not graduate. I dropped out. But in econ major, I mostly picked it because it was easy in the Stanford curriculum.

Peter Attia (6:00)

What year were you in when you dropped out?

Joe Limont (6:02)

I would have been class of 90, 1990. And I dropped out between junior and senior year. I'm sure my junior year professors were like, he's not really engaged and probably misses too many classes for me. And just a little bit on the background was when I was in high school, I wrote a paper on AI. The paper was about expert systems and old school AI, not what we know today. There was a part one paragraph called neural nets, which is sort of today's AI. And it was like, this is decades away. I then went to Stanford and literally I was in a class with Professor Weigenbaum, who's considered one of the fathers of expert systems and old school AI. And he's just talking about how you can build these incredible systems and they'd be worth millions of dollars if you could figure it out. And so some classmates and I, we dropped out, started trilogy. And the story around that was just. It was the first AI company. We didn't call it AI back then because it had bad rep in the 90s to sell a billion dollars of AI products. And so that's how we got our start and eventually leads to, you know, today's story.

Peter Attia (7:03)

I always find it amazing when people are dropping out, like with one year to go, sort of like, why didn't you finish it? But you must have a strong conviction if you're saying, I'm gonna forego my Stanford degree to go and start this company that can't wait a year to do this.

Joe Limont (7:14)

There's a famous Forbes headline that's like, you're a moron. Because my dad was very clear what a moron I was being by dropping out. The issue was I felt there was a time to market issue. It was a race. And I was just like, I'm sitting in Spanish class, I don't care. My market's going to run away without me. And there's this huge opportunity to go build this company. It's that tension where you thought now, with 2020 hindsight, it took us over three years to build the product, and we thought we could do it much quicker. And so there wasn't a time to market issue. And with. With hindsight, I could have stayed. But back to that pressure, I just felt it. I didn't want to miss it. I had to go do it.

Peter Attia (7:51)

Did you guys come and set up shop in Austin right away?

Joe Limont (7:54)

Not right away. So we dropped out and did the whole. We couldn't raise funding. Silicon Valley back in the late 80s was not given money to dropouts like us, but we literally lived in a garage. We had classmates who had a house. And we're like, can we rent your garage to live in it? But then in 92, we moved down to Austin. Actually, John lynch, who was one of the co founders, was like, look, if we're going to be poor, back then, Austin was cheap. It's a lot cheaper than Palo Alto, so let's go move down there. And so that's actually what led us down here to Austin.

Peter Attia (8:25)

When did this idea of finding your next. Is it David Brooks, who wrote that book the Second Mountain? If your first mountain was trilogy this incredible business, which really we're not going to say much more about, other than the fact that it basically created an unlimited, essentially war chest of capital that you were then able to go and deploy to your second mountain, which is this passion around education. Yes. You always had an interest in AI, but when did these two become the next frontier?

Joe Limont (8:54)

Back to education? 10 years ago, 11 years ago now. McKinsey Price started Alpha in Austin. Radical idea back then. One of the things I've learned as principal of Alpha is that parents want their kids education to be however they were educated. And I was the same way. I went to Catholic school. My kids are in Catholic School. And McKinsey's like, look at this great new school I got. It's going to be awesome. And I was like, that's weird. When she started, it's literally in some guy's garage. I'm like, you know her co founder, I'm not going to the weird school. Sorry. It took her two years to actually convince me to move my daughters over. They sampled it one time and literally loved it. They did it after their Catholic school got out, before they went to Summer camp. And they came back and they're like, dad, we don't want to go to summer camp. We want to still go to Alpha. And I didn't like school enough.

Peter Attia (9:46)

You weren't going to miss summer for school.

Joe Limont (9:48)

That sounded crazy to me. So anyway, I was like, okay, that's actually a really good sign and we should move over. And that was 10 years ago. But my discussion with McKinsey always was like, this is awesome, but it's not scalable.

Peter Attia (9:58)

What did alpha look like 11 years ago when you first appeared behind the curtain?

Joe Limont (10:03)

It was the other co founder, Brian. And he had this philosophy, he had these rules. So when I moved my kid over to Alpha, I said, brian, what are the two things I don't believe about education that I need to understand? He's like, first, kids must love school. They must love school. And I'm like, sort of spinach sometimes, dude. Like, no. He's like, you're wrong and you'll figure it out. And I was like, okay. And then his second is, your kids can do so much more than you expect. And I'm like, I sort of have really high expectations. He's like, they're going to blow you away on what they can do and your expectations are too low. He was setting it up, really. It was 20 kids. They weren't in the garage after two years. But it is alternative. They would use a set of apps to do academics, but they'd have. The teachers would help academically if needed. And then they would have all these life skills. They check charts and life skills. So it was some academics and then workshops and life skills.

Peter Attia (11:05)

And the 20 kids that are in there, what grade, age range?

Joe Limont (11:09)

They were probably second grade to fifth grade was probably the range sixth grade, somewhere around there. And they're clustered, sort of like the one room schoolhouse you go in. And it is crazy. He's like, oh, they're doing spelling bees. I'm like, they're walking on their hands, doing handstands across the room. And he's like, yeah, watch how they do it. And literally they would have to try to walk across the room in handstands but recite all the words on their spelling Via is doing it. Could they make it all across? And the kids were just having a ton of fun. And I was always like, are they really learning? And sort of all the academic side. But testing showed they were.

Peter Attia (11:46)

And what was the state of technology? You referred to some apps, but what was the state of educational apps 11 years ago?

Joe Limont (11:52)

There was things like Dreambox and Khan Academy was out.

Peter Attia (11:56)

Okay, so they were static. Static in the sense that they weren't adaptive.

Joe Limont (12:00)

The problem with old ones, and actually even a bunch of them today is now we know with learning science all these much better ways to do it. Their standards of mastery were too low. Their implementation of learning science was too little, if you look at them, but they were good enough that you could get your way through. But back to some of the problems. Like when my oldest first took her seventh grade test, standardized test, she failed at all.

Peter Attia (12:27)

Sorry, this is after being in the alpha program.

Joe Limont (12:29)

This was. She had been in the alpha program with those apps.

Peter Attia (12:32)

Got it.

Joe Limont (12:33)

And so the apps were janky and not all there. This is before I got involved, except as a parent. And she failed her seventh grade standardized test. And you're like, oh, wow, you can use apps. People say, how does alpha get all these results? Because there's a lot of people who try to use these apps and you're like, these apps have gaps and holes. Figuring out how to change that was a lot of how I got involved in what I've been doing the last three years.

Peter Attia (12:57)

Your foray into this is obviously then in this logical way through the experience of your own kids. I want to just take a step way back and talk more about education in general. I don't think anybody listening to us now is unfamiliar with the idea, although it's not particularly popular at the moment. We have enough other things that are going on in the world that have people up in arms, but it's sort of cyclic. When people look at the data and realize that the United States is not doing well in primary and secondary education or I don't know if those are the right terms, but whatever it is up to K to 12. I don't know if secondary is considered college, but we start to do pretty well in college relative to the world. But getting to college, we're not doing well. And it's. The point is further made when you look at the dollars in to results out. So I think we're spending what, 1 trillion on K through 12 education, which is about 1/7 of what the world spends. And of course we don't have 1/7 of the population, so there's a huge mismatch there. But our ROI is quite low. So it's actually kind of parallels the healthcare spending thing where on a per capita basis we spend more on healthcare than anybody else, and yet we're actually not producing the best life expectancy. So let's dwell on that for a moment. Why does the United States spend so much money on K through 12 education. And maybe more importantly, why are we not getting the results? At least if we believe we're measuring the results correctly. If the results are to be determined by these tests that all the OECD nations take, why are we doing so poorly?

Joe Limont (14:28)

That's a really complex answer, but it is true. Our academic performance continues to go down across it. As an example, there's this test, NWEA map test. It's a nationwide test. When I was a kid, I took an Iowa test. This is equivalent one. Millions of kids take it. And they just updated their 2025 norm table. The last one they did in 2020, you know, every five years they update the benchmark. America knows less now. So your average 8th grader in 2025 knows less than the average 8th grader in 2020, which knows less than the average in 2015.

Peter Attia (15:04)

Yep. You can't just blame Covid on that.

Joe Limont (15:06)

No, no, no.

Peter Attia (15:06)

Like this is a continuing trend.

Joe Limont (15:08)

It's a continuing trend. It's continuing to go down. There is one actually anomaly which is from 15 to 20 and 20 to 25, there's one group who actually goes up and that's your 99th percentile. So the top 1% academically in America in K through 12 continues to increase. Those are your Ivy League bound kids continue to go up now everybody else is going down. Things are getting easier in tests. The AP tests in high school that you take, they renormed them in the last couple years and they norm up against college kids because it's like, okay, if you take an AP test, that's like a college class. And so they say, well, what do college kids know? And they're like, oh, college kids know less. So now our AP test is easier. And so it used to be at Alpha, if you were going to be in the honors track, you had to get a four or five on an ap. Now we're like, oh, you just need a five because the fours are too easy. The standards just keep going down. And I'll give some more data. I just gave the academic talk. We had hundreds of families at Alpha across the country. We have campuses now everywhere. Start the last couple weeks. And so they all come in, they take a placement test. I got up in front of all the parrots and I was like, here's the message and it's going to worry you, but you should take away that your $40,000 private school, they've been lying to you, which is if your student has an A and you've been getting Straight A's on your transcript. That student in our tests is anywhere from one year ahead. That's great. To three years behind. This is an A student who's three years behind. And when we talk about three years behind, they're a seventh grader. That means they're missing a significant number of questions on the fourth grade test. If you're a B student, you are from three years behind to seven years behind.

Peter Attia (16:54)

Let's give an example of what this means. I have a great sense of this because you and I have been through this together, but I want the listener to understand tangibly what that means. Let's put that in terms of something mathematical. Let's talk about what that implies for a B student in seventh grade mathematics. What concept could they be possibly missing?

Joe Limont (17:15)

They don't know their multiplication tables or division tables. So one of the things that's happened in K through 12 education is they've decided that memorization is bad and you don't need to memorize your multiplication tables anymore. You're just going to use a calculator. That's not what learning science says. If you're going to do higher level math, you need fact fluency. And if you think of cognitive load theory, you have a certain number of working memory slots. And the level of complexity of the math problem that you can solve is going to be based on how many slots you have and how you're using them. And one of the few places in brain chemistry is if you have memorized something to fluency, it doesn't use a slot, it doesn't use it. And so you can do higher level math, but if you have to use your slots to say 7 times 8 is 56, you're now trying to do higher level math and you're using it up on the wrong things. If you want to do higher level math, memorize your math tables and your division tables to fluency. That's the most simple, obvious thing we could do in this country is just change that. Just go back to what we used to do. And even this, and this is the most extreme example, we had a student who had a 740 math sat.

Peter Attia (18:24)

Just for listeners who might not be familiar with that, the score is 800. 740 would be a very good score.

Joe Limont (18:29)

It's a very good score.

Peter Attia (18:30)

What percentile is that?

Joe Limont (18:31)

Top 10%.

Peter Attia (18:31)

Okay, yeah, 90th percentile.

Joe Limont (18:33)

Easily. Yeah, 770 is like a top 1%. So maybe in top 5%. Great score. She cannot get above it. We do what we call game film you review why you missed the test, why you missed the questions on the test. One thing as an example, that's common in sports game film. People don't do this in academics. For some reason, she would just go through it and she's like, I know what that is. You decide, was it a careless error? Did you not know the material? She's like, after the test, she could get them all done given time. What happened was she was overloaded and made careless mistakes. When your working memory slots are overloaded, it reflects actually in careless mistakes. So if your student's making careless mistakes, you're like grit and discipline. You're like, you probably don't have a fact fluency somewhere earlier that if you just go fix that of a sudden, those careless mistakes go away. So she literally went back to third grade, learned her multiplication and division tables back to convincing parents. That's really hard. Convincing students and parents. Your 740 math student needs third grade material. She then got a 790 math after she memorized it because she stopped making the careless errors. She knew all the material before she was overloading her working memory. And the learning science is like, that's her issue in our system. We can identify that and fix it. And seemingly crazy that you can go back and memorize your tables and get up there.

Peter Attia (19:52)

I remember another story, Joe, that we bonded over a couple of years ago, which was the student that was really struggling in entry level chemistry. And I think anybody who's been through chemistry can empathize with that. The first time you're doing, you're going through physical chemistry and you're trying to balance the chemical equations and this kid is dying and they think the problem is, it's chemistry. The problem is chemistry. And you came in and said, no, actually the problem is fractions. You didn't master fractions in third grade or fourth grade or whatever. Fractions are introduced and you're failing chemistry for this exact reason. We're going to go back and fill the gap in fractions and this will become easy for you. And of course that's what happened.

Joe Limont (20:36)

Math, science knowledge is hierarchical, right? And this is back to mastery, which is why we do poorly. We've given up mastery in this country.

Peter Attia (20:45)

Why?

Joe Limont (20:46)

We're a time based system. At the end of third grade you're moving to fourth grade and at the end of fourth grade you're moving to fifth grade. And we don't hold kids back. We've said we're just gonna move kids through no matter what. Cause it's time. Cause there's all these other social issues. Oh my God. I can't have my kid hold back the pressure on the school to relax the standards. 80% of kids at Harvard get an A now. Grade inflation grades look like this. Yep. Learning standardized test scores look like that. Yeah. And for whatever reasons we've done it. But in a time based system, just even grading, there's this concept that, okay, you got a 70, you can pass. An 80 is a B. That's great. Got my kids a B. Student 80. The problem is if you only have 80% knowledge, you're creating all these holes and it all compounds where eventually. And it starts to when you hit algebra or chemistry that you think it's the current material, but it's your prereqs. Right.

Peter Attia (21:38)

It's your foundation.

Joe Limont (21:39)

It's your foundation. We talk a lot about parents because a lot of this is we all grew up in this time based system and just the old system. And so this new way is very different. But the best analogies we always use that parents totally understand is sports just like game film. We're like, review your test, figure out what's wrong. Mastery is the same one. If you're the point guard and you lose the ball 20% of the time going down the court, the coach isn't like, let's work on the advanced stuff. They're like, kid, let's learn how to dribble.

Peter Attia (22:05)

We don't need to worry about dunking yet.

Joe Limont (22:06)

Correct. No dunking. Let's focus on get up to 99%, get to mastery that you know how to do the basics. Everybody in sports is like, if you're not doing well, go back and do the basics well. Academics is the same way. And if you apply that same logic, but in a time based system with a teacher in front of a classroom, you can't get every kid to mastery. And that's when we get into like the new solutions and why we get these crazy, you know, kids can learn 10 times faster. It's because we're able to get out of a non mastery time based system, a non mastery time based system that has a teacher in front of a classroom. Teachers are great. Teacher in front of the classroom's bad. That dynamic and to your point, hierarchical chemistry is just algebra with advanced word problems. Physics is literally calculus with advanced word problems. Algebra is basically advanced fraction manipulation. You can give kids a fraction test and predict their algebra score. And then fractions are how's your division and multiplication tables? Do you memorize them to fluency? It just keeps Going down the whole track, all the way down. And so part of what you have to do to fix the system is figure out age grade. Oh wait, I'm an 8th grader in algebra and knowledge grade. Wait, I don't know, my fractions are different. A teacher in front of a classroom though, it's not their fault. I'm a teacher, I'm an eighth grade teacher. What do you teach? Eighth grade material. And I have kids who don't know some third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh material. What do I do? And this is why so many people hire tutors after school at private schools. It's crazy. We have all these people go to private schools and hire after school tutors because the school doesn't teach them and the tutor's just like okay, I'm gonna go give you the earlier grade level material. That's it. When we talk about kids, all these hundreds of kids coming in who are three years behind, seven years behind, the second part of what I tell the parents is that's freaking you out because nobody wants their kid this far behind. But it's so easy to fix. The remediation on this stuff is no time at all. When you use these learning science based AI tutors and the apps that we have, kids can learn 10 times faster. 10 times faster. So when you actually look at material, there's 180 school days, hour a day plus homework, couple hundred hours, one subject per grade level takes our Alpha Kids between 20 and 30 hours to finish an entire grade level to mastery. So you can take fourth grade math and be like you got 26 hours kid, you do an hour a day of homework, you're 26 days away. Right? 22 hours is seventh grade and sixth grade, 22 each for math, the science curriculum like sixth, seventh and eighth grade. First of all, we don't teach a lot.

Peter Attia (24:52)

And Joe, would this work just as a thought experiment if each student had one teacher, the private tutor. If you could put a private tutor in front of a student for 22 hours over the course of whatever, two months or one hour a day for 26 days, are you confident that that individual. And of course we'll talk about why that's not practical but that individual, if skilled enough could navigate and weave that child through.

Joe Limont (25:17)

So if you give me a few more hours than what I just gave you because the AI can do a little bit better than most tutors, but yes, fundamentally the paper that was written when I was in high school about education so learning science has been around for 40 years. They've been writing papers. There's 10,000 papers published by all the schools of education and Stanford and all over the place. That is, we know kids can learn two, five or 10 times faster. We've known it in Bloom's Two Sigma is a seminal paper. And he just said if everybody got a personalized tutor was his first point. And second, they did it to mastery. They worked to mastery.

Peter Attia (25:55)

Right. So mastery based, not tenure based.

Joe Limont (25:57)

Correct. Just you have to know the material before you advance and there's an individual tutor to coach you. You will get two Sigma better performance. Your leftmost part of your curve. Your worst students are gonna be at what today is considered the top 10% in a Two Sigma performance.

Peter Attia (26:13)

You said to me once, four or five years ago, something, and I'm curious if you still stand by it, which is at least through the end of eighth grade, there is not a single student in the United States that cannot achieve complete mastery in mathematics to score above the 90th or 99th percentile in the national test.

Joe Limont (26:35)

Yes, I think I said that to you three years ago. And I would hesitate, just for argument's sake, take out the bottom 5% just to stop all the arguments.

Peter Attia (26:44)

Okay, all right.

Peter Attia (26:45)

You would still say that 95% of all 8th graders in the United States.

Joe Limont (26:51)

Could be what today is considered top 10% performance. They can get to math.

Peter Attia (26:55)

In mathematics.

Joe Limont (26:56)

In mathematics.

Peter Attia (26:57)

So just let that settle in for a moment. That seems to fly in the face of everything. I want to go back and close the loop on something before we continue this discussion, which is I still don't have a sense of what's changing because we've always had a time based system, not a mastery based system. So what has gone on in the last 25 years? Because that's not the change. Why are scores.

Joe Limont (27:18)

Why are standards. Yes, the fundamental answer is standards are lowering. And part of it is parents. 3 years ago when I became principal, I would sit down with parents and I'm like, we have this cool engine. It's going to teach your kid twice as much in the two hour block. Twice as much. Now they have to use the apps right. And engage with it. And your student's not using it right, so they're not learning 2x. The parents are like, stop. Don't pressure my kid to learn 2X. Don't pressure them. I'd be in a parent meeting and it would literally be mom, dad and Johnny. And I'm like, look, when, you know, when he misses a question, he doesn't watch the video or he's scrolling and just guessing. If he just watched the video, he'd learn twice as much and the parents would say, we're not interested in that. Now the rest of the things parents want, life skills, community, school is a bundle of which academics is one piece. And for the most part in America, except For fewer than 10%, less than 10% market share, less than 10% of the parents, fewer than 10% of parents really care about academics. 90% of parents are like, oh well. So that was an eye opener to me. Hundreds of parents of meetings later, we switched our pitch which was two hour learning, the same engine. You're like, it's two hour learning. And look, we're trying to get Johnny out of here in two hours so we can do these cool workshops and do what he loves. Parents are like, Johnny, what's wrong with you? Don't you want to get out of here? Do the cool stuff. And so the most important part of education is a motivated student. For us, 2x learning is not a motivating idea except for sort of the top kids. Two hour learning is motivational for every kid on the planet. If you had to say, my biggest unlock was that realization. The product became codenamed time back. Give the kids their time back because that is the most precious. For 12 years we waste kids time. We know that kids sitting in a lecture based classroom retain maybe 5%. That bad. It's that bad. It's that bad. Being 10 times better. You're like, I need them to remember 50%. It's that bad. We know it's that bad. It's not personalized to them, it's not to a master's. All these bad things. And so we're wasting their 12 years. And you wonder why kids don't like academics and they're disengaged and all these things is we're wasting their time. And so for this it's like, great, they're going to learn in two hours. Now they're still learning 2x. That's just not the part we pitch. And so they're learning 2x in 2 hours and then you free up the rest of the day. And so we get all our kids. Our score is at alpha school. We're all top 1% academically. Our classes are top 1% in the country. There's no school academically who's as good as alpha in the country. And the reason is using this model, we're just implementing all these concepts that have been written in these learning science papers for 40 years.

Peter Attia (30:01)

Is there a challenge to the intensity that's required in those two hours. So I'll give you an analogy. So I get asked all the time, hey, Peter, look, I've read that I could just do one set to failure once a week for each body part and get most of the benefits of grinding it out for 10 to 20 sets per body part. And I say, look, well, it's a little bit of an exaggeration, but there's some truth to this. If you could truly do one to two sets to absolute failure per exercise, yeah, you're going to get great results. And they're like, well, Peter, why don't you do that? And I say, look, to be honest with you, it's really fricking hard to bring that level of intensity to every single set of every single workout every time you do it. And there are a bunch of other reasons that I actually kind of like being in the gym or whatever. But the point is, it's true you can get great results in much less time. But for many people, the intensity is not something they're willing to rise to. And so I guess the similar question is, if for two hours a day, a kid can learn what a traditional kid is learning in six to seven hours a day and actually do it better, is there something that they have to be able to bring from an attention span perspective that is very difficult?

Joe Limont (31:11)

The answer is it's not difficult, but they have to want to do it. So motivation. If you talk to an educator, there's two things you need. You need a motivated student, and you need to put them in lessons of the correct difficulty. Not too easy, not too hard. Taking this a little bit, why doesn't ed tech work? Back to these apps. And test scores keep going down, but Everybody keeps buying edtech. And the answer is edtech does that second piece, that 10% piece of put them in the right lessons very well. Our AI tutors do it even better. It can figure out very easily what a kid knows and doesn't know and say, age, grade eighth grade, knowledge, grade fourth. Give them fourth grade lessons. So that part's great. Now, the second part is, to the point of my parent meeting, how do I get them to engage with the app? Because I'm spinning in the chair, I'm not paying attention. I'm talking to my friend. I'm scrolling TikTok. I'm doing anything except focusing on it. And so what is their motivation is 90% of the solution. And for us, that's why time back is so valuable, which is the kid has to Engage with the apps for those two hours or they don't get the rest of the day, they don't get their time back. They'll just sit there wasting their time. I mean, we literally in our app have a waste meter and it just coaches the kid. We can get into the AIs and stuff. And chatbots are terrible. ChatGPT rolled out to America students. 90% of kids use it as a cheat bot. It's all cheating. We don't have a chat interface in ours, but one of the things our AI does is it watches the kids screen and coaches them up and is like, look, you're scrolling the article and guessing not going to learn that way. You're skipping this. And it's going to coach them of how to learn better. And if you have a motivation for the student to actually learn better and be effective, they're very happy to do that. We have a sports academy that we just opened 10 of them around Texas. And these are middle schools, D1 bound athletes kind of, they come in and they do the two hours in the apps and then once they hit it, they go green where they've done the lessons. They get to do sports all afternoon. And so you can take kids who are like, I hate school. I skipped school. Absenteeism is huge. And when they get to do that, all of a sudden they're like, I'm totally motivated. It's only been a couple weeks that we've been open, but you get notes from all the parents who are like, my kid always was sick, never wanted to go everything. Now he's waking me up and is like, let's not be late. It's because they have the motivation to actually learn. So that's the most important. You can do that for everybody. And motivation really, really does matter. And Alpha's designed around how do we motivate kids? And the biggest motivator is time back. We also use a lot of other ones. That's the biggest thing that makes our system work. Then when you talk, just is there also extra juice of the intensity? Right. We measure. Do kids get through our apps 90 or 95% first time? Right. Where we're not making the lesson hard enough, where we want to make sure the lesson's not too hard, where you don't have to have too much intensity.

Peter Attia (34:05)

What is the sweet spot? Is it 90?

Joe Limont (34:08)

Between 90 and 95% high first time. Right. Got it. Yeah.

Peter Attia (34:11)

Okay.

Joe Limont (34:12)

So actually there's a thing called the zone of proximal development, which is what an individual student should be and you want to keep a student in 80 to 85% correct questions which is different than first time. Right. On getting through the whole lesson you want to be in the zone of proximal development which is if you're at 99% it's too easy. You're not learning if you're getting 99% of the questions right, you're just regurgitating what you already know. If you're missing half the time or two thirds, you're only at 50 or 60. You get disengagement. It's too frustrating. Like I'm out. Video game developers are the world's experts on this, on engagement of how do you engage. And they'll tell you always winning, always learning that concept. And 80 to 85% is where that is. So we're measuring the way to maximize learning is a unending stream of content. Both educational questions. Right. And learning content that is at 80 to 85% accuracy. And this gets into stuff that we're building is if you sit in a Stanford lecture you're going to retain one to five facts, ideas and concepts per hour. Our current learning engines, depending on what the subject we're at 20 to 40. We have stuff that we're working on and Genai is the driver of this. We'll get to a hundred facts, ideas and concepts an hour. Think of an endlessly scrolled TikTok list except engaging and good content instead of the poison that that is. And so the learning science part is we know how to get knowledge into kids head 10 times better than the current educational system. It takes a whole rebuild and back to kids when they love school they're going to engage in the app because the whole day is great.

Peter Attia (35:52)

Let's go back and talk a little bit about education science. You've alluded to it a couple of times. Tell me what 90% of people would agree with. I was going to say tell me something that is unambiguously true about education science. But let's soften that a little bit and say tell me something that 90% of people who study education, study the science of learning would agree with.

Joe Limont (36:12)

90% would agree that individualized tutoring and a mastery based standard is the best way to teach kids. It's dramatically more effective than a time based system. The concepts in learning science zone of proximal development, spaced repetition. You would get the testing effect that actually asking kids active learning is better than passive learning. Retention of sitting passively in a classroom is the worst way to teach a kid. All of those things what else are really well normed? Cognitive load theory is a newer area of learning science that started in the 90s. And this is the how many working memory slots do you have? And then how many reps does it take to move from working memory slot, short term memory, basically working memory slot to long term? They're all going to agree.

Peter Attia (37:01)

It's so interesting to me that there's any dispute around that. When you see the effects in sports. Sports illustrates that. I think more than anything else, you look at the difference between a Tom Brady versus an exceptional quarterback, a very good quarterback, and it's the processing speed. It's not how fast or how far he can throw the ball, it's his processing speed that sets him apart. It's the cognitive bandwidth of what he's doing. I mean, it's actually the same in Formula one. If you look at what separates the very best in the world from very good, it's cognitive bandwidth. It's the guy who actually doesn't have to think at all about driving and can still drive at the limit while he can use all of his cognitive reserve for strategic decision making.

Joe Limont (37:47)

So, like that fluency stuff, there's nobody in learning science who's like, it's better if they don't memorize their multiplication tables. Even though our school system, it's not like, oh, these private schools are bailing on it too. It's not just.

Peter Attia (37:59)

But why was that decision made? Parental pressure.

Joe Limont (38:01)

Again, my kid is not happy.

Peter Attia (38:03)

So this is another one of the sort of coddling of the it is.

Joe Limont (38:06)

To come to an Alpha school. Now I have a conversation with parents I've sort of fried when he gave you those two things, but I've added a third one to it, which is, first, your kid must love school, really love school. And we measure, literally measure, would you rather go to school or go on vacation? Super high standard. We should have. Kids love School for 12 years. They're going to be there. Your childhood, why do we not have that standard? The second is your kid can learn in two hours twice as much as sitting in class for six. Your kid can crush academics in just two hours a day. Crush it. That's the second thing you have to believe to come to alpha. And the third, and this is where the controversy parts, but it's true, is the key to your kid's happiness is high standards. And that's the one that a lot of people do not believe that they think the key to my kid's happiness is low standards.

Peter Attia (38:56)

Where did this virus come from? Where did this virus infect us.

Joe Limont (38:59)

Well, part of it is the parents want to protect their kids comes from parents from a good place, which is, I don't want to see my kids struggle and fail on their road to success. They don't want to see that. I talk about the cycle. As a principal, I can tell you kids struggle, fail, sometimes cry on their road to success if they're supported by a caring, loving adult. That loop, if you ask any child development expert in the planet, you can type that all in. ChatGPT is the key to kids development, the key to their self confidence, the key to their resilience, the key to their growth. They go through a cycle of struggle, fail on the road to success.

Peter Attia (39:38)

It's a hero's journey. It's woven into everything.

Joe Limont (39:42)

And back to your point on sports, 50% of America's like, you know, where my kid learns life skills. And when you talk about life skills, teamwork, leadership, grit, hard work, it's an after school sports because that's what the coach does. My kid's gonna go through that struggle. And I went through it when I was playing sports and my kid's gonna go through that. And that's where you learn it. And they have this view of that's the only place you learn. It's such a thing in school.

Peter Attia (40:05)

That's such an interesting point.

Joe Limont (40:06)

And the reason it doesn't happen in schools is because in a time based system, everybody thinks good grades equals high iq. And so it's fundamentally that IQ is what determines grades. And so I don't want to pressure my kid because it's not fair. And so I don't want to put that pressure on him. One of the magic unlocks we have back to everybody can get to much higher performance is a mastery based system. If you take the best kids, you're like, who are the kids who do get in the Ivy League? They're basically the high IQ kids who also have high conscientiousness, big five conscientiousness. They're grinders, they just crank through it naturally. And those are the kids who do well. And so if we're rebuilding education to fix it, we have to take those two constraints away. A mastery based system takes away iq, which is every kid. The conceptual leaps that are required to get through K through 8 actually by the design of Common Core aren't that big. That does not mean everybody can go be a nuclear physicist at Stanford and design all these things. There is areas where you do need more cognitive everybody in math, there's a point they reach just, I can't do the processing. But K through 8, it's designed that everybody can do it.

Peter Attia (41:25)

Everyone will do it.

Joe Limont (41:26)

Everybody can do it.

Peter Attia (41:27)

Just reflect on that for a moment. Joe. Think of all the kids that are in 6th, 7th and 8th grade who are good students in other domains. They're doing well in English. They're doing well in history. They're conscientious, they work hard, but they've created a narrative that says I can't do math.

Joe Limont (41:43)

We'll dive into that. We also use our motivation model to undo the conscientiousness limitation. You have to use more extrinsic motivators to let people who aren't high conscientiousness still perform like somebody who does. So those are our magic unlocks on those two things that we think can fix education. But your math thing, I got to give these examples. So it's an epidemic of kids who come into middle school, predominantly girls. I have two daughters who come in and they're like, I'm not a math science girl. Society's like accepting it, okay, let's go read all the learning science papers about how middle school girls can't do math science. Okay, there are none. There's none that doesn't exist. There's no such thing. But it's this total meme that they believe. And so part of our job in middle or when they transfer in high school is to fix that. There's this concept of, oh, I'm an art girl or I'm an English girl or whatever it is. And it doesn't. Girl, boy, there's no difference. We have some seniors this year. The first one, her big project that she does at Alpha. At Alpha, you do these big Alpha X projects. She is doing the first all teen produced created musical for Broadway. She sourced all the songwriters off TikTok. She can fill a thousand person venue. She's trying to raise it up so she can do it. So she'd be, you know, I'm an arts theater girl. 790 math Sat. We have another girl. These are seniors. She's trying out to be Miss Teen USA. 790 math sat. Third girl. This is my daughter. She has a. I call her TikTok girl. She's got millions of likes on TikTok and tons of followers. She's building a app to teach teen boys how to ask girls out on dates because teen boys are terrible. Dad. Top 1% sat. There's this concept that these people can't learn it. You're like, they all can now. What do you have to do? When they come into middle school, they do. They don't know the multiplication tables, they don't know the prereqs. They are going to struggle in algebra. So you're like, okay, let's go back, let's fill them up. And all of a sudden, once you fill the holes, all of a sudden they can do it. And then once you know algebra, you're like, oh, I can do chemistry K through 8. Science, there's no math, actually. It's all just memorizing facts. Igneous rocks and planets and stuff. Once you get to high school, that's where biology is still. More memorization, less math. But then chemistry and physics are all math based. Calculus and algebra, you have to get these kids the prereqs. But then all of a sudden they're like, oh, chemistry is pretty fun now that I know calculus and I can crush Calc bc. All our kids in high school, if you want to be on the honors track, it's 5 on calc BC. Totally doable for everybody, this whole thing. Our freshmen coming in, by the end of the freshman year, they're 1410 on the SAT, which 1350 is top 10%.

Peter Attia (44:25)

These are freshmen.

Joe Limont (44:26)

These are freshmen. And most schools don't. I mean, that's better than most junior seniors. Most don't publish their freshman results. And we can get freshmen there. Once it becomes this mastery based system, how high you go becomes a decision. Back to your effort. It's a decision, not an inherent capability. And so when you break that link, Alpha kids are just in a mastery based system, they're like, oh, it's just more work. It's not. I'm not smart enough. And that is the unlock that we have to have and why we have to move to a mastery based system. Because you just need kids to be like, oh, if you're in normal alpha high, 1350 is the minimum SAT. You got to get to it. Top 10%. If you want to be in the honest track, it's 1550.

Peter Attia (45:07)

1550. I mean, that's top 1%.

Joe Limont (45:10)

Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's just a decision. Do you want to do the work to get to 1550 from 1350?

Peter Attia (45:15)

It's just that, look, I'm willing to put in this many more hours this year.

Joe Limont (45:19)

Yeah. Back to my youngest daughter, just took the SAT and she's top 1%, but she's not perfect. 800. She's asking the AI. She's like, how much time will it take for me to get up to the top to a perfect 800. And you know, at that level it doesn't really matter for getting into college. But she's like, just out of curiosity. Well, no, she's like, dad, all those stem boys, they think I'm this dumb TikTok girl and you know, if I get an 800, I get to mog on them the rest of their life. And I think it's totally worth it. And so she's literally. But it's just a decision. She's trying to decide it'll come back and It'll probably be 20ish hours, probably, I don't know, some manageable number of hours. And she'll just be making a decision, am I going to put the reps in the practice in to get there so that I can have this ego boost basically because she really loves it or no, okay, I'm going to do something else with my time. That's where in these mastery based models versus teacher in front of a classroom model where you're a time based system, you're like, I don't know how to get there. There's no path up. And when you log in to our system, it literally tells you, you know, in two hours a day, you're three years behind. So you first come in, you're like, you're three years behind. You're like, oh my God, that seems insurmountable. You're 20 to 30 hours per grade level. So you could be 60 hours behind if you're three years behind. 60 hours, that's it, you're 60 hours away. And you're like, so if I do an hour of homework, two months, I'm there, I'm caught up. Now back to incentives. There's some kids who are like, do I care that I'm caught up? But it's easy to incentive to want to catch up. You can figure out, okay, what do we have to do? One of the things Alpha's known for, whether infamously or not, is we use extrinsic motivators, use money. Time back is the most important one, it's more important than money is the Westlake track honors track, where it's six hours a day and eight zillion homework hours. I don't think you can pay a kid enough to love school by going through that. Versus we're two hours a day for a non honors track, we're three hours a day for honors. Back to the 1550. It does take more time, but we will take middle school kids. This is a middle school active program, we have kids come in, we will pay them $1,000 to get to top 1%. There's a lot of stories around this where kids view, look, I can't do that. I'm not the smart kid. I'm not the math science grower. I can't whatever it is. And if you get there and do these lessons and we're just going to keep giving you lessons and you do the work, you're going to get a thousand dollars. We'll pay kids coming in Middle School $1,000 to get to top 1%. The point of this is what's even more important than the academic knowledge. It's their internal view of themselves that changes that. Kids come in and say, I'm not a math science girl. I can't be top 1%. I can't do this. Whatever limits they have, and a lot of education, when you talk about it, is holistically, you're trying to take limits in kids and release them, have them understand you're limitless, you can do all this, and this is the best way academically we've found to do it. And so they come in and the AI is going to say, here's all the lessons you need to do to get to top 1% and just go through them. And that motivation will get all these kids to top 1%. And the number of stories we have, I have one, my own daughter, but all the alpha families where they're student, they come back and they're like, I didn't realize I could be top 1%. And my personal self confidence and view of myself that I had to do hard work, you had to do the work. And then once you take a middle school kid who's top 1% as they go into high school, they're not going to give it up. And there's this mental view of, oh, I guess I am a smart kid or I'm a capable kid. And that unlock is so valuable. So for us, that's when we think juicing it with money. I mean, we spend 20 grand a kid in this country per student and you're like in middle school, give a kid $1,000 in order to have them realize there's no limit.

Peter Attia (49:16)

Why would most people, I assume listening to us, have sort of an uneasy feeling about that? They can't reconcile what you just said, which is, well, wait a minute, on the one hand, I know we're spending $20,000 per year per kid on these kids and we're getting nothing for it. And you're proposing we Give them a couple of those thousands of dollars strategically to incentivize half of the equation, which is them having the motivation to do this. And yet that's going to make a lot of people feel uneasy. Why?

Joe Limont (49:44)

So there's a view that there needs to be an intrinsic love of learning for it to be pure. It has to be intrinsic, not extrinsic. And that if you're buying it, it's sullied and not good. It's wrong. It's fundamentally wrong. That is a common view.

Peter Attia (50:02)

Are there any data that would support one view being favorable to the other? How would that be studied?

Joe Limont (50:07)

Yeah, there is a set of papers that have been written that shows. Show that if somebody is not intrinsically motivated or is intrinsically motivated and you pay them, they lose intrinsic motivation. Now, that's not the case that we're sitting with. We have kids who aren't motivated, who aren't intrinsically going through it. They need the boost. And if you actually ask Alpha kids, and maybe we'll do a study someday, no parent who has their kids at Alpha thinks, my kids lost their intrinsic motivation. If anything, it's the opposite, because now they think they're capable. And those papers don't talk about is how much of the issue was, I didn't think I was capable. I now realize I am, and I get this crazy intrinsic boost around it. My youngest daughter would be this example, which is she came in to middle school, she hit top 10%. This is going into seventh grade. She was top 10% coming in. So she'd been there, but she's like, dad, I'm not like my older sister. I'm not top 1%. That's just not who I am. I'm TikTok Girl. I was like, you know what? I know you know, love more than anything is shopping. I'll bet you $1,000 that you can't get to top 1%. And so she literally would fill her Amazon cart with a thousand dollars of stuff. And in the morning, she'd then look and look at the lessons she had to go through, and she'd do it right. She'd just grind through it. Now back to this thing. It's. We had a lot of family discussions around this because my wife, she was like, wait, there's two things. Most parents are like this. There's two things here. One, you're setting 1% top 1%. And most parents are like, that's too hard. Why are you putting that pressure on the kid? And number two, it doesn't feel Right. To pay a thousand bucks to get this. We were all brought up that there's something wrong, but she does it. She hits top 1%, buys everything. But then she sits down with my wife and she's like, mom, I know you didn't like us doing this, but you need to understand what this has done for me, which is I never thought I was as smart as my older sister. And now I realize I can do everything that she can do. And it's totally changed my internal view and that element now. In fact, she's also the one now who's top 1% on the SAT trying to decide if she wants to do the extra work to get a perfect score. That change in their view of their capability, that unlock is so valuable. And I believe we should do this for every kid in America. But that's the dynamics of why people don't like it. You then just have to decide if you can use extrinsic motivation, whatever it is, buy them concert tickets, go shopping, screen time, video game time, whatever it takes to get the kid to realize I can go be and learn all this and be top 1% when I previously didn't think that. And I go through that struggle, fail sometimes cry on the road to success loop. That then unlocks my human potential. The point of education beyond academics, you're trying to unlock human potential and this is just a great easy way to do it. It's not available in a time based system.

Peter Attia (53:11)

That's the thing. It's not necessarily something that has to happen indefinitely. What I think makes sense here is that it's an unlock that then creates a new state of awareness that therefore becomes self perpetuating. So in many ways it's like the kindling that leads to the fire. You don't need kindling indefinitely, but sometimes you need kindling.

Joe Limont (53:31)

I'm going to steal that from you because that's a great way to think about it, which is I'm not paying her to decide to go get a perfect score on her sat. It's intrinsic, it's her decision, it's her capability. She just needed that kindling to jumpstart it. Whatever block was in the mind, good coaches, they're like, how do I unblock them? And that's what this does. Since we're on this of paying. I'll give you my second one. The Secretary of education is coming down next week to meet with McKinsey around alpha and stuff. And if there's one thing to fix education in America, what's the simplest unlock it Would be this. And it's all around whole filling and paying kids, which is. So when I first started, I wanted kids to go back and whole fill called whole filling. Go back and do your prereqs. I'm sitting down with seventh graders. And you know what does not motivate a seventh grader? Do it in fourth grade. No kid wants to do that. No one wants to be going back. And the only people who want it less than the kid are their parents. Every parent in America has been trained. My kid needs to be at grade level, which, once again, the learning science. That is not right. Get your kid to master the basics, and if it's previously material, give it to them. And I tried to convince parents, your kid needs a whole fill if we're going to get this thing. Whole thing working and stuff. And I basically ended up giving up on the parents. And so then I went to the seventh graders, and I was just like, okay, here we go, guys. You could get a hundred on the Texas star. You know, our state test. They're like, no way, Mr. Lebot. I'm like, no, no, no. I'll in century, I'll give you $100 bill for a hundred on the test. They're like, that's still impossible. I'm like, no, no, no. There's a catch. Any grade level. They're like, I can take a kindergarten Texas star, and you can give me 100 bucks. I was like, well, it starts in the third grade. They're like, I'm in. They take the third grade Texas Star. They get 100. I give them $100 bill. They're like, fourth grade. I'm like, absolutely. Same thing. 100 get 100.

Peter Attia (55:18)

By fifth grade, they're running into 12.

Joe Limont (55:19)

They got 75 to 85, right? They get 75 to 85. There's holes. I'm like, well, do you want the AI tutor to generate the lessons you missed? And they're like, well, let me see how many it is. They're like, I can do that in a week. They're in. Get the 100 on the way. 6th and 7th grade, and for $400. $400.

Peter Attia (55:39)

You brought a kid up to grade level?

Joe Limont (55:41)

Up to grade level. But more importantly, they all think and know they can get 100 on the state test, which used to be only the GT kids and smart kids get it. If you survey incoming alpha parents and say, can your kid get 100 on the Texas Star? Fewer than 10% say, yes, they can. After you've been at Alpha a year, 90% of kids are like, I can totally get 100 on Texas Star because they've done it right. Our building over there gets more hundreds on the Texas Star than a school district of 100,000 kids. And it's just because we have a mastery based system where our advancement now and is built into our system is we'll actually advance a kid if they get over 90. What is our mastery standard? It's in the 90s, so you have to score on the state test above a 90 to move on to the next grade level material. But we also have 100 for 100. And so the kids are like, okay, well, I guess I'm just going to get the hundred because I want to get the $100 bill. So you have this concept where. And it just changes them where I could advance.

Peter Attia (56:38)

That's an interesting experiment in and of itself. It's sort of what we would call a natural experiment because it's not randomized, which is if the kid is motivated basically just to do the bare minimum, they're going to just take the 90.

Joe Limont (56:50)

Right? And if you make it a hundred, there's a little reality of bringing your parents and everybody along with you on this crazy journey we're on. And so that hundred lets us out of it. When you get to the higher material and you've done 90, our app's still going to go back and fill those 10% because it's the best way to learn. But it's just get them advanced, let them go and do that. But the hundred, the kids all just do it because they know they can. And it just gets the right mindset going, which is why our kids literally for the sat, everybody thinks, oh, you can't get perfect scores. They're like, it's just some extra work fives on APs, people are like, that seems impossible. They're like, oh, how many hours is it? It takes 75 hours to go through AP World History or AP US History. It's 75 hours. And they're like, oh, I got 15 hours left to get a five. So you just change the concept. Now there's some upper bound where there is conceptual understanding and everybody can't get there. But K through 8 curriculum. What would change education in America? We can totally do this.

Peter Attia (57:47)

So let's now talk about the AI piece, which we haven't really explicitly talked about. You said something to me once that I think was actually remarkable. You compared it to medicine. You compared education to medicine in terms of an unlock. So talk a little bit about that.

Joe Limont (58:00)

If you go back to the sciences and whether it's biology or medicine, chemistry, physics, all of these had periods in the wilderness, I'm sure, doctors, bloodletting and things like this. But there was the invention of an instrument in each of those that allowed more precise measurement, that unlocked and inflected the science. Medicine had theirs. I don't know which one you thought.

Peter Attia (58:24)

I've heard you discuss this. I think it's the light microscope. If you were going to talk about one instrument that took us from what I describe as the dark ages of medicine 1.0 into medicine 2.0, which is where we are today, that inflection point came primarily around. Without the light microscope, it couldn't have happened. Sid Mukherjee wrote very eloquently about this in his most recent book, the Cell. Basically, until we could actually start to see microscopic organisms, we couldn't really handle germ theory. And until we could eradicate germ theory, we couldn't really live past about 40 on average. There were just too many people dying too young. That one piece of technology unleashed an entire change in the way medicine has been practiced, which of course has spread out far beyond infectious diseases. But I think it's impossible for me to imagine a scenario whereby we are alive today in the way we are without that.

Joe Limont (59:20)

When you look at AI learning science, these papers have been written for 40 years, but they all start with this doesn't work with a teacher in front of a classroom time based model.

Peter Attia (59:30)

You had the conceptual solution for the last 40 years on how to fix education, but there's been no technology to make it happen.

Joe Limont (59:38)

You haven't had your microscope, we haven't had our microscope. And AI is finally that microscope because of a couple things. The first is before your effect size, when you put an experiment into a classroom, you're like, well, is the teacher teaching it correctly? You know, is it using space repetition correctly? Are the students engaged? Do they have the prereqs? You just don't know. And so your environmental variables dominate your effect size. With AI you get two things. You get absolutely precise teaching, you know exactly what is being told to the kid. And then second, you have this closed loop measurement. You can measure what do they know and what they don't know. You know all of it. And then you can create, you can do science, you can create this closed loop. So our system, we rolled out our new system time back to all our students this year a couple weeks ago, our math curriculum, we believe this year is going to be better. Kids will learn more in 20% less time. And we know that because we've been measuring it and we looked on last year's math and we're able to say, okay, we have this idea. Okay, the kids, what percent learned? Were they 95% right? How long did it take each kid to go through the lesson? What do we need to change? What learning science concept can we put in the lesson that's going to then allow them to learn better and faster? And what's going to change the scheme of their brain? Not cramming, but really understanding this? And then, okay, they took the standardized test. Oh, look, it did work. And you can just create this closed loop system where you're able to do science. Nobody else has that. And that's the problem. We need to create that system. But to do that, you have to give up. The most treasured notion in the world, which is the key to good education is a teacher in front of a classroom. One of the things that's true about education, before there was tutors, you had Socrates and Plato and Aristotle and Alexander the Great and all the elite had tutors. And then 200 years ago, we have to educate everybody. The only way cost effectively to do that is teacher in front of a classroom. And that is all any of us know. Our parents know, our grandparents know, we've all been in that.

Peter Attia (61:42)

And it did great things because at scale, we have educated people that never would have been educated before. I wouldn't have been one of the tutored ones.

Joe Limont (61:50)

Correct. It is. And you can go to the poorest school district in India and there's a teacher in front of a classroom. Not very nice building. You can go down to whatever private school that's charging your $50,000. Teacher in front of a classroom in a very nice building. But that model is all we know. And great teachers matter. This is always the part with our new model and AI tutors. I want to take a second here because people get freaked out. Adults. 20 years from now, parents are going to drop their kids off at a building and in that building are going to be other kids and adults. And those adults, you can call them teachers, guide coaches, whatever you want. We think the day will be very different. But that concept of a school with teachers and other students, that's not going away. We're not moving to this AI robot Terminator. That's not what's coming. You're going to drop the kids off at a school. If we do our job right, you don't sit in class for six hours a day and have this miserable experience. Kids Love it and all of those. But back to the science of it. We now with AI can have a one on one relationship. The AI knows. What does the kid know? What do they not know? How do I give them this lesson? And if you look and if you want to talk just about where we're headed, the future is even Gen AI is changing everything. That was the part for me that I saw, which is I can craft personalized lessons for every kid that takes into account what goes into the LLM. Sort of on the technology side. What are you trying to teach them? What's the curriculum? What is their knowledge graph? What do they know and what do they not know? What is their interest graph? What are they interested in? Because actually if I know your interests, I can engage it. Oh, you want to learn baseball. You love baseball and you want to learn stats. I'm going to term it in that. And kids are going to get engaged. Oh, you're the fashionista. I'm going to teach you fractions.

Peter Attia (63:41)

Is the app already able to do what you just described?

Joe Limont (63:44)

So where we are today, in 2025, we generate static content with human review because we still have too many hallucinations. We're not there now. In 2026, we expect we'll be able to do it.

Peter Attia (63:55)

Just to make sure I'm putting this in perspective. So my 8 year old, who is that kid who loves baseball? All he does is talk baseball stats. He is a walking baseball statistic. Do you know so and so hit 326 and this many home runs and do you know he Was able to hit 477ft?

Joe Limont (64:11)

Blah blah blah blah.

Peter Attia (64:12)

He will be able to get to know his AI tutor. They will figure out in short order that the way to his heart is baseball. And anything that you can teach in baseball terms, he's fixated.

Joe Limont (64:24)

Exactly.

Peter Attia (64:25)

It will be able to give him a lesson to pursue mastery, but under.

Joe Limont (64:31)

The guise of baseball, under baseball, and we all know this, that's what teachers are always trying to do is how do I get what the kids like and associate with it. But at scale, you don't have 30 kids who like all the same things, et cetera. So here's an example of what you can actually do today. You have hallucinations and you don't want to release those yet. We have a dynamic reading generator. It's called Teach Tales. And the goal of this is to get kids to love to read. So if you take a third grade boy who's like, I hate books, I hate books. I'm Not a book guy. And you're like, what's your favorite movie? The Avengers. Who are your soccer buddies? Okay. The AI generates a choose your own adventure where you're saving the world with your soccer buddies. They have to keep hp, an Avenger each be one. And literally at the Lexile level, the difficulty goes up. It knows. So it's keeping you in the zone of proximal development. Within 10% of what you know, your Lexile level, kids will sit there and click for an hour, totally engaged, non stop reading nonstop. Because we do have a reading problem in this country. People don't read books and all these things. This is the kind of thing where Gen AI is going to be able to suck kids in. Our competition is Fortnite and TikTok. We need to use things like Gen AI to create such compelling content for kids that's related to what they care about. That also teaches. Okay, I got a teacher. Fractions. But we're doing this baseball thing. So you're fine. You love that. There's a whole program that a lot of people in finance where there's actually a program where they have a mother daughter thing back to a different way to try to solve it without an AI tutor. Where there's all these finance moms who teach their daughters poker in middle school and they're like, I'm going to get them into poker to teach all these skills and the math skills and all the things that aren't being taught in my school. But with us, we can get that engagement level where the kids are interested in it. And to give you a couple examples, and I'll use some of our high school kids. So when you transfer into Alpha High, your knowledge of history is very limited, which is if it's in the musical Hamilton, you know it occurred. And if it didn't occur, it's not in a song. In Hamilton, you don't know it because we don't teach history very much anymore. But all the kids know Hamilton. They all sing songs. Our US History, AP World history. They literally used AI. They did this on their own. It wasn't our stuff. They used AI to generate. Here's all the facts. There's nine units in US History. For each unit, they created a song. And they said, give me all the facts that I need to know for this unit. And they pumped it into sumo, which is an available song generator, and they created their own album of songs. And they all would just sit around and sing the songs and learn the facts that way and do it in a way they all were very interested in and they all got fives on their AP because you can do it to mastery. And so Gen AI is going to allow us to create this awesome dynamic content that's relatable and focused on what or applicable to what kids want. The other part is there's a learning science concept also builds advanced frameworks of the fastest way to learn is basically analogy. And so do you have a knowledge graph?

Peter Attia (67:34)

This is the A in the abc. So Dean Schwartz's book we're going to link to that in the show Notes goes through A to Z. Everything that learning science has come up with.

Joe Limont (67:44)

Exactly. Dean Schwartz from Stanford School of Education, one of the leaders in the field, he's written a book and he's like, here it is. And every letter has a different one. But this one, A is analogies, one.

Peter Attia (67:55)

Of the ones I remember.

Joe Limont (67:56)

And analogies, that's the fastest way to learn. So if you know what a kid knows, we have a content team. When I talk about those hundred facts, ideas and concepts for hour, what they're using as reference is they're using TikTok memes because kids know TikTok and they know what's on TikTok. Well, let's take what we're trying to teach them and use something they already know. And that's actually the fastest way to have kids learn concepts. And so those are all coming then even when you talk even further. The part we don't have in yet, but our team's working on it is we also take into account, we will be taking into account the cognitive load of their brain, which is we're going to be able to create a lesson where we know how many working memory slots you have, we know what you know to fluency and what you don't. And we're not going to give you a question that's going to overload your working memory. We also know how many reps you need and GT kids need fewer reps. And so we're not going to bore you by giving you too many reps to memorize it. Conversely, we're going to make sure you have enough reps if you need them. And so this personalized learning where you're generating the content dynamically is going to be just this crazy unlock for these kids. Five years from now. Everybody's going to look back and be like, okay, well obviously kids can learn 10 times faster. We wake up every day, it's like Neo in the Matrix. That's a physical upload. Ours is using learning science concepts. Kids can learn 10 times faster. And when you think about that, you have 12 years, you have 12 years to fill your kid's head with cool stuff knowledge because they have to hang out in their brain for the rest of their life. And we've allocated 12 years to fill it up. We just need two hours a day at 10 times faster and all the kids can have more stuff and more cool stuff about stuff they like in their heads to mastery level levels none of us as parents could ever imagine and still give the kids their time back for the rest of the day to do all other things.

Peter Attia (69:50)

So about three years ago, you sort of decided you gotta step out of Trilogy. It's this incredible company you've built. Are any of your co founders still there? I think it's no.

Joe Limont (69:59)

So three years ago, the transition was when Gen AI came out, which was three years ago. Neural nets are here finally. That was an unlock for me where I had seen McKinsey's great school and seen my kids in there and there were issues like my daughter failing her seventh grade tests and stuff where the apps aren't good enough, all those issues. And I'm like, genai will allow us to take the magic of Alpha, make it better and scale it to a billion kids. There's lots of good educational things that just don't scale. And so what this was was my realization.

Peter Attia (70:31)

This was your light microscope.

Joe Limont (70:33)

This was it. Light microscopes here. Okay. I've been doing software. I went to my team, who've been there for 25 years. I'm like, guys, for 25 years you've been telling me you're better than me. We'll see. I'm going to go be a principal. And so they run it. I'm now chairman and I am now literally the worst shareholder you've ever seen. Because I'm like, guys, I need more cash flow. I need more dividends to fund this whole thing. McKinsey needs $300 million to open up all these schools. Where are we going to get it for?

Peter Attia (71:01)

So how much of your money have you spent on this now?

Joe Limont (71:04)

Three years ago, I took a billion dollars out of Trilogy. It was my first lump sum and said, I'm going to go use this billion dollars to figure out what I can with education and fix as much as I can. Now what's crazy about that is a billion dollars is not enough to fix education. It's a trillion dollar industry and we obviously have made incredible headway, but we have to go back to building schools, back to McKinsey. She's opening up 25 alphas around the country. She needs hundreds of millions of dollars for that. We're opening up these sports academies, which needs hundreds of millions. We're opening up 500 gifted, talented schools. The total capex that's going to be required. The second part is I'm going to do this the next 20 years, right? I got 20 years in this. My job is to go fix education, get it to a billion kids, and give kids their time back. Use the light microscope, use AI to totally change the first 12 years of a billion kids.

Peter Attia (71:59)

At what point, Joe, did the two systems have to merge? Because one of the reasons that you're having to deploy such insane amounts of capital is because you're basically rebuilding things that are technically already there. I mean, we have buildings, we have schools, we have guides. They're called teachers. We have all those things. But you're creating a new system of infrastructure. But I assume you don't want to have to build the scale to a billion. At some point this way has to merge with the existing way. At what point does that merger take place?

Joe Limont (72:28)

My view is there's a point of if I had perfect, randomized controlled trials back to a billion kids, I don't know, do I need 10 million kids going through it for everybody to be like, okay, this looks like it works.

Peter Attia (72:42)

But the bar is so low. I mean, I guess that's the thing that's amazing to me, right? When I think about places in medicine where massive clinical trials are necessary to change the direction of something, usually when the state of play is so bad. Let's talk about an example, which again, I don't use this example to be offensive to people that are within education. But let's look at HIV in the 80s and early 90s. It was a death sentence. The bar was pretty darn low. Low when heart therapy, highly active antiretroviral therapy came out in 95 or 96, and that boom, which changed the protocol. Of course, pharma is easier than education in the sense that it's a simple intervention. But who's pushing back when you say, hey, guys, what if we just prove this out in a million kids? Why do I need 10 million kids to prove this? Especially if they're spread out over a broad enough socioeconomic background?

Joe Limont (73:36)

That's sort of our next phase. And why I'm doing my first podcast in 20 years is there's a lot of impediments to it. Let's go back to that discussion of parents don't care about academics. So we'll start there. We'll do that. Second, believability. There's been Ed Tech pitches, everybody, every five years. Ed Tech's gonna solve the world. Technology's always gonna solve the world. And it doesn't solve it. There is good, well earned natural skepticism.

Peter Attia (74:05)

Of, you know, so there's a lot of. There's a lot going on.

Joe Limont (74:07)

Let's just go and let's just. Evil billionaire tech guys trying to fix education are.

Peter Attia (74:12)

It's a meme.

Joe Limont (74:13)

No, it's a meme like make a movie. So the skepticism should be super high. And it is. So that's part of what the job is and why it takes a billion dollars. We have to go prove it across everybody and in a broad way. Completely agree with that. But let's talk about some of the problems with it, which is, let's talk about academics right here in Austin. There's been three failing middle schools in Austin. And I look at if I was a superintendent of a school or principal of a public school. I mean, like, I want to be really clear. That's like a hundred times harder job than mine because I'm a product guy. People who come to my school are aligned with what I'm building and my offering. You get selection effects. People come to Alpha are like, I know I'm going to have screen time for two hours because if you don't, you don't come. But at public school, you get what you do. Schools are Fs for five years. They're not educating the kids. And the superintendent, he made his first proposal, whatever, months ago. He's like, why don't we shut these schools and we have these better schools. The kids just go to the school where the kids are learning. Literally the protests that have been from parents. Listen to them. It's the mom who's just like, look, I know that seventh grade math teacher. She's probably not teaching math very well. But my older daughter had her. She changed her life. And my kids can walk to school and it's community. And so if they don't learn seventh grade math so much. So what the superintendent, if you take into account the community feedback, which they're supposed to, all of a sudden you have parents who are like, I care about other things because school's a bundle. And so that makes this hard. So there's one just do they even want it? The second is obviously just skepticism of this doesn't really work. And why don't we do randomized control tiles or pharmaceutical caliber stuff with education? Because there's all these ideas of what work. We have a lot of ideas that we're rolling out, like no multiplication tables that somebody should have done randomized control child to realize that's a really bad idea. And so all these fads in education, because it's not science, the learning science. If you actually ask one of the scariest data points if you want this, there's 3 million teachers in the world. They're not taught learning science, they're not taught learning science. These concepts will be new to them. And so back to how do we fix it? We have to go teach all the teachers about learning science.

Peter Attia (76:19)

Do you get pushback on that point? I mean, how much time do you spend talking with the teachers that are in the trenches right now? I'll give you an analogy from my world. I talk about this idea of Medicine 3.0. Medicine 2.0 has been amazing. It's an amazing run. You and I wouldn't be alive without it. Literally, we would be dead by now. But I would argue it's time to move on. We've plateaued. We got to do medicine 3.0. We have to unlock the next thing. But when I say that I'm not being critical of the doctors who practice medicine 2.0, because I haven't met many of them who wouldn't in a heartbeat say, look, I wish I could do medicine 3.0, but the system I'm in doesn't allow it. I can't get reimbursed to practice medicine 3.0. The entire system of billing and coding and diagnostics and prescribing, it's all predicated on this system. It's predicated on make the diagnosis for the disease, treat the. There's no prevention. I don't get paid to, nor do I have the education to learn about nutrition, exercise, all of these other things that are necessary in medicine 3.0. But if I could wave a magic wand, my bet is 80% of them would be like, if there's a way to fix the system and the structure such that I can be balancing my practice between 2.0 and 3.0 in a heartbeat. Do you have a sense? Have you got enough reps with teachers to understand if you had that proverbial magic wand, how many of the superintendents and the teachers would say, oh my God, I'd love to transition from being a front of the classroom teacher to an in the classroom guide who's helping the student with their personal AI tutor.

Joe Limont (77:49)

So the answer is it is at least 80% like, same example, which is.

Peter Attia (77:52)

So you're on the same team?

Joe Limont (77:53)

No, no, because we have our guides, they're ex teachers. We got into this whole naming thing. But do you call them teachers if they're not doing academics and whatnot? But fundamentally, when they tell their story of what they do all day and let's just talk about teachers specifically, teachers are great and critical and teacher in front of the classroom is bad. But to your point, it's the system that.

Peter Attia (78:13)

It's a very similar analogy.

Joe Limont (78:14)

It's the same thing. Teachers, they got into teaching to transform kids lives. They did not become a teacher to grade the seventh grade science test. And so let the AI do the seventh grade lesson and the science test and you connect with your kid, your students. So during our two hour blocks, we do 25 minute Pomodoros. Our guides, ex teachers, they're not in front of the class lecturing. They literally take the kids one on one and say, hey, don't do your language today. Come sit down and talk to me for 25 minutes. How was your weekend? How'd the softball tournament go? Hey, you don't seem as motivated lately. What's going on? And they connect with them. Our guides, they provide motivational and emotional support. They set high standards and high support. They're the ones guiding these kids through the journey. And that's why teachers became teachers. I want to write a lesson plan. Nobody woke up and said that's why I'm becoming a teacher. They did it because they want to transform kids lives. And that's what this new model does. And so when they see it, they love it. So one, we pay more. But also the teachers see our model and once they really understand it and talk to our existing ones, they're like, this is awesome, I love this. And so there isn't resistance now at the systems level. So I've talked to a lot of superintendents and they're like, what do you want me to do with this? What am I supposed to do? They're like, what do the kids do the rest of the day? The problem, when you talk about it, this is a rebuild around the school day. It's not six hours a day in class with teachers and you're moving kids between classes.

Peter Attia (79:48)

Two hours a day of learning in the screen and four hours a day of life skills and sports and all the sorts of other things that are gonna be imperative to create well balanced kids.

Joe Limont (79:59)

Right? And our life skills curriculum is leadership, teamwork, storytelling, public speaking, relationship building, socialization, grit and hard work, entrepreneurship, financial literacy, those Things and they're doing workshops in the afternoon. This is if you go to McKinsey's Instagram. Kids climbing rock walls in kindergarten or they're running 5Ks in second grade, or the fifth graders launched a food truck. So there's all these different things running tough mudders. Eighth graders do that stuff. If you're a superintendent, you're like, okay, my system's not set up for this. And right now there's no demand from the parents because it's not proven, it's too far obvious and even. And let's even get out of public school. Let's go. Just talk about super high end private schools. You can go down the street and try to convince a super high end private school and say you have all the flexibility you want. There's no vote, there's nothing you should transform. And they're like, this seems like a bridge too far. And so that's my view of my job.

Peter Attia (80:55)

So is that why essentially Alpha exists as an independent school at the moment, is you just need to get the scale of wholly owned Alphas that build this out. And at some point the others, probably the private schools, have an easier time joining the model. And eventually the hope is, of course, the public schools do so as well.

Joe Limont (81:16)

Everybody. So I got 20 years and I got to get a billion kids, 80, 90% of kids are in public school. You got to get it to public school and provide it to everybody.

Peter Attia (81:24)

What is the current cost? Because I'm sure you're hemorrhaging and losing.

Peter Attia (81:28)

Money at the moment.

Peter Attia (81:29)

What is the current cost to deliver the education to a child and does it vary by their grade?

Joe Limont (81:35)

So stepping back. So for Alpha, our job is. And that's why we're opening across country, in every city, there's going to be this Alpha exemplar, the high end, where you're like, this is what's possible. Now it's also one where it's money no object. It's really expensive. And back to the things. Today, my AI, I'm using the latest models, this real time streaming video to Coach Kids. It's 10,000 bucks a kid, $10,000 per.

Peter Attia (81:57)

Kid per year in just AI cost.

Joe Limont (81:59)

In just in the AI cost. It's too much now, I absolutely believe. And our team's going to deliver it where sometime in the next three years, maybe five, everybody on the planet will have a tablet that's less than $1,000 that will teach them everything they need to know in two hours a day or less.

Peter Attia (82:16)

And the compute will be what It'll be local, It'll be local.

Joe Limont (82:19)

So you'll be on device. Like a lot of our stuff right now is vision models where we're looking stuff, there's on device. All the hardware manufacturers are putting their AI chips on device. We'll hit that. I'm sure there'll still be some stuff in the cloud for higher end stuff, but the common core curriculum through eighth grade, on device, less than $1,000. That's absolutely coming. Then the second part is, part of what Alpha is, is because it's this high end expensive stuff. You're like, let's re envision what a school is from the ground up. So we sit around, I'm like, what would make a school 10 times better than old school that we went to? We sort of have five dimensions that we do. And the first is kids must love school. And we literally measure more than vacation and we get 50 ish percent of kids. Depends on the vacation, depends on the workshop, if it's really good. 50% of kids who are like, yeah, I want to go to school instead of vacation. My highlight as a principal was in May this year, 2/3 of the high school kids sent me a note and they're like, can we keep Alpha High open this summer? Because we don't want to take a summer break because we love what we're doing. The girl doing her Broadway musical, she's like, I want to keep coming to school and doing it. And so back to my world where I was not into school and I was shirking and my dad, I'm like, make a place where kids love school and vacation's a good standard. Number two, kids need to learn 10 times faster. We need an engine that teaches kids 10 times faster. And so our AI tutor, based on learning science, teaches kids 10 times faster between five and 10 and we'll get it up. So that's the second part then that gives you the chance to give the time back. The third dimension of a school is academics. Isn't everything to developing kids. Everybody knows that. What are the life skills that every parent says? That is what I wish I knew. And some are traits, behavioral traits. I hope they are love learning and are self driven learner. You want things like that. And I want somebody who uplifts others in his classroom and behavioral and is an independent person. Others are like those ones I talked about where you're like, no, I want entrepreneurism and financial literacy or I want storytelling, public speaking, those type skills. And so the third is have that.

Peter Attia (84:23)

Curriculum, the suite of skills the suite.

Joe Limont (84:25)

Of skills that every parent wants. So we actually have spent the last three years developing LifeCore, the Common Core curriculum for life skills. Because I have four hours a day to fill with all this awesome stuff that kids can do, and it's just amazing what they do. If you take Atomic habits, that book of 1% better, most people don't read that till after college, and then they're like, oh, this is a way I can really develop. Last year, our guide, Faith second grade guide. She sat down and she was working on her workshops. You know, her life skills. She's like, you know what? I want to teach atomic habits to all the second graders because the concepts they all can understand. And she's like, you know how I'm going to do it? She's like, I'm going to have all our second graders run a 5k in under 35 minutes. I'm like, oh, no. Okay. The parents are not gonna like that. That's too hard. Back to high standards. They don't want struggle, fail. Where's that road to success part? And what percent are gonna make it? She's like, don't worry. I can do this. She was a UT athlete, and she's like, we totally can do it. She was like a head cheerleader or whatever. She's like, everybody can do this. So she sits down with the second graders first day and is like, who can run a 5K? And they're all like, that's impossible, Ms. Faith. The parents all are like, that's impossible to say. She's like, well, I signed you all up for the jingle 5K, you know, at the Domain. So she goes out to the track, and the first day, they walk it, and they walk 5K. She's like, okay, so we all have established you're gonna finish the race. And then the next time they ran a quarter lap, walk the rest. Next time, half a lap, walk the rest. And by December, all the kids are running the race. And you know, when they cross the finish line, just that achievement. Back to. The key to your kid's happiness is high standards. That's a really high standard. But they loved it. And they did have to struggle and go through and learn this, but they also learned that life skill of 1% better. And so the second grader's like, Dad, I can do anything. I can do 50 pushups. I'll do one today and two tomorrow and build up. And that skill, that life skill we don't teach kids in school. It's a great life skill to have. And if you have half the day. You can do that. So that's the third element of like, how do you build a great school? The fourth element. And this gets to the teachers. What would make a teacher ten times better than what it is today? And the answer is, well, not grading science tests all day and writing lesson plans, but instead connecting with the kids. Here's the questions we ask students and the parents, which is to kids kindergarten, we're like, do you love your guide? But as you get older, it's every adult had one or two teachers who transformed their life right back to that is your guide. That for you, that is the expectation that they are the ones that the students are like, you are helping me achieve things that I didn't think is possible. Ms. Faith, you taught me how to do the impossible. That level. And actually then the parent side, this gets into Dr. Yeager has a book, 10 to 25. Child psychologist, development expert. And it's what matters for kids from 10 years old to 25. His whole theory, mentor mindset, high standards, high support. Most parents are not high standards and high support, which is what really matters to developed kids, they're either low standards, high support, that's what happened to all our expectations. Or they're the inverse. High standards, no support. This would be your classic tiger mom, good luck, figure it out. And the real answer for child development, you need both high standards, high support. And so that's our guides. But the question we ask parents in middle and high school back to having what's a school? Re envisioning it. It's like, do you trust your Alpha guide to hold high standards for your kid so you as the parent can provide the unconditional love and support which transforms for those who've had adolescents, it transforms your relationship where you don't have to be the naggy parent for the high standards. My oldest daughter, she's writing her college essay and I'm like, you want to let me read it? And she's like, no, no interest in that.

Peter Attia (88:21)

She's got it taken care of. She's got someone else.

Joe Limont (88:23)

And for me, I was super relaxed because I was like, I know Chloe. Backdoor guide. She's a Harvard grad. I know she holds totally high standards for my daughter. And I know it's going to be fine. And I don't have to get in a fight about it or whatever. I'm just like, okay, yeah, I can give my daughter a hug and be like, good luck. That transforms what teachers can be versus I'm delivering those seventh grade lessons. And so the fifth dimension that we talk about is the C's character, community, classmates, and culture. And these are also the hardest parts to measure. But at the end, they're what parents care about the most, which is, at the end of the day, you don't care, do I have a good kid? Did I raise a good kid? And is the school helping me raise a good kid? Those elements are what we looked at and said, now that you want to re envision school from the ground up, here's the dimensions. So Alpha's trying to be the exemplar for all of it. And then the question is, okay, how do we get the price point down? So we have opened a whole set of different schools at half the price of Alpha. So Alpha, depending on its location, is between $40,000 and $75,000.

Peter Attia (89:29)

Although there's scholarship programs, tons.

Joe Limont (89:31)

So we have a huge scholarship. We have a school down in Brownsville where it's the second poorest school district in Texas in the country. Brownsville is the second poorest school district in the country. At that school, it's SpaceX is there. It's so starbase. So you have a bunch of SpaceX kids and then we scholarship all the locals to come in and it's 60, 40, 50, 50 between that makeup and to be clear, they all learn 2x in 2 hours. Back to testing it out. It works with all kids.

Peter Attia (89:59)

So I want to read you something that fits right into this. So this is, I think I read this in the New York Times before kindergarten, the children of the affluent are much more likely to be in preschool by sixth grade. Students in the richest school districts are four grade levels above children in the poorest school districts. That's just by sixth grade. By high school, richer kids average reading skills are five years ahead of poorer kids by college. According to a 2017 study by Raj Chetty, children from the richest 1% of earners are 77 times more likely to go to Ivy League schools than children from families making $30,000 a year or less. The academic gap between the affluent and less affluent is greater today than the achievement gap between white American and black American kids in the final days of Jim Crow. In other words, my read of this is that there is no greater predictor of academic success and failure than the wealth of your parents. So are you really suggesting that that could be wiped out?

Joe Limont (91:11)

There's always relative versus absolute, and I believe we can raise the absolute standard. It's always an arms race.

Peter Attia (91:20)

Put it this way, instead of the gap being 77x could that gap be 1.2x?

Joe Limont (91:26)

Yeah. 100%. 100%. Back to that issue. Because here's what happens. You're in a rich school district and I was up in New York and these are $75,000 private schools, teacher in front of a classroom. Every one of those parents also was spending $750 an hour on a tutor after school because the school wasn't teaching them back to that problem, but an extra 75 grand tutoring them. 150 grand a year. Yeah, you need the tutor who's going to go back and fill the holes and stuff. And no, if I am in a school district, poor school district, I don't have the tutor, I don't have the access to that. If you look after Covid, the number one intervention and lot of government funding was spent. This was high dosage tutoring. Everybody knows this. It's not a secret. It's expensive to give individualized tutoring. And there was a study that came out a few weeks ago or a month ago that was like it was really working. And then sometimes as it expanded out it did less well. And the difference was when it was really working as one on one. And then they started to save money. They had six to one. And tutoring six to one is cause it's not individualized, it becomes a class cause it's just cost driven. That's the issue with if you have 30 kids. You can't generate an unending stream of content at 80 to 85% accuracy based on what the kid learns.

Peter Attia (92:43)

It has to be one on one.

Joe Limont (92:44)

That is the delta for each kid. It's personalized learning. A personalized lesson plan is what every kid needs. And I believe that if you get all the learning scientists together and say yes, AI is the light microscope. Don't you agree? And can we create a program that's available to everybody? And I think they'd all say yes, yes we can. And the software is not insurmountable. I was actually talking to Stanford has their Stanford accelerator for learning and Dean Schwartz runs it. And I was like, you know, we could probably create an xprize for an open source, available to everybody. You also need better credible people than me. You don't need me saying this. You need Dean Schwartz and Stanford and the Ivy League, the people that everybody looks up to in education in America and saying, we know this, we know this learning science we can run. We can take Stanford CS and AI department with the learning science and put that together and create this project for not that much money. That we can then get to every kid, get it into every public school. They have the relationships with all the teachers where they don't need the randomized control trial or the skepticism you'd obviously get from talking to me. So this is all very doable. That is this mission.

Peter Attia (94:00)

What is the biggest risk right now? Is it the equivalent of what we call market risk where it's just adoption, it's just the leap of faith that we can somehow abandon the only model any of us know? Or is there still technology risk embedded within the AI?

Joe Limont (94:17)

There is still some technology risk, but that's literally like you can ratchet down and you don't have to be 10 times learner. But could we get them three times, five times today with more static versus some of the cool dynamic stuff? Yes, you could, but it's. Are you willing to change the motivational model for the kids? Are you willing to tell the kid, use this app and I'll give you your time back? Are you willing to say you don't have to sit in class for six hours a day? It's the rebuild that's the problem. If you take our software, our magic AI tutor, whatever it is, and you put it in a standard classroom and the kid has to sit there for six hours a day, I can promise you it won't work. It will not work. And so that's the issue is back to what Brian told me a decade ago. Are you really willing to say kids must love school? Are you really willing and then go rebuild your school system around that? Because if they do, they're going to engage in the app, you're going to give them their time back to do stuff they love. Is that all? Are you going to make those changes? Because it isn't an ed tech solution. It's not go build this ed tech, drop it and it's going to work. We have that. Those apps do generally work to get the real revolution. You need to say, are we going to rebuild what we think K through 12? The first 12 years of the kids lives are. And if that's true, then the sky is the limit. And what we're obviously doing is trying to say, look at this, look at these examples. Because parents need, I've learned as a principal they need two things to want to change the school. Remember I was skeptical for two years. I'm the average parent. They need a reference from an adult they trust. How's it working for your kid? Did it work for your kid? And second, they need to see the kid do something at the School that their kid can't do. And if you have that, that's actually the magic that unlocks a parent saying, okay, I'm going to go move to this new model. What it is that the kid can't? Oh, he loves school. Oh, my God. He wakes up in the morning, he's waking me up so he's not late. And he used to cry on the way to school. Or, oh, wow. Some parents are like, I love the academic performance or those life skills I really care about. Or, he connects with his teacher so much more as guide. Cause it is different. Back to the choices. Like why we're opening all these different schools. We have a gifted talented school. We have a Sports Academy school. We have a wilderness school. Fishing and archery and farming. We're going to be opening arts, theater, music. Parents want different things, and kids want different things. And so it's showing these things that is going to be the connection that causes parents to say, I want this. And if you do a good example about motivation, if you put the GT Moms, McKenzie has her roundtables. The GT Moms with Sports Academy Gifted and Talented. Sorry, that's GT Gifted and Talented. And then the Sports Academy moms, they just look at each other like the other parent is off the rocker. Where the Sports Academy mom's like, my kid was just comes home just sweating, running around all day, and I literally throw them in the shower with their clothes on. In the GT Moms. Right? Okay. They were having a chess tournament in the afternoon, and then we came home and continued it. And it depends on the motivation. Each kid's different, and all your kids are different, and everybody knows that. And when we ask, like, I sat down with the guides, we're like, okay, how do we make these all better? So on staff days, because we have all the guides from all the different schools. And I'm like, okay, what's going to make kids really love school? How do we get it from 50 to 60 to 70 on Love School? The GT guides are like, more. They want a third power hour of academics, and they want Math Olympiad. And all the other guys are groaning because they're like, no, our students do not want more academics. They want sports or let's do a better workshop or what it's going to be. And so the key on all of this is saying, how do we focus school on making it awesome for kids, making it great, Have a culture where it is high standards, high support, where you have this magic unlock of they can learn 10 times faster, which then enables you to Give them the time back to do all these other things. But that's a big lift. That's why it's going to take 20 years. But I do believe that every parent, the most important thing is raising your kids. It's the same at a societal level. The most important thing a society does is raise its next generation. And everybody cares about it. We spend enough money in this country or globally, there's enough money to actually rearrange this and build an education system that's great for the kids. 5% of GNP, $7 trillion. There is recognition at both the societal or parent level that this is where we should spend money. And we do.

Peter Attia (98:41)

Joe, it's kind of amazing to think back in the spring of 1989, you drop out of college to go start a software company. Obviously, there's no way you could have imagined both the success you would have in that company and creating a multi billion dollar company and along with it, a fortune for yourself. But then somehow deciding right at your peak that you were going to completely walk away from that, take that fortune and pour it into another endeavor that seems as far from anything as possible relative to what you started with. Look, I feel really fortunate that you started this in Austin. For the listener. I think I probably should have said this at the outset. My daughter spent two years at Alpha. It was an absolutely exceptional experience for her. Really experienced all the things you talk about. So showed up in. When did she show up? She showed up in seventh grade. Shows up in seventh grade with the absolute negative story of I love reading, I love arts, I love these things. I'm a musician. I just don't do math and science. I know you did, dad. That's not me. I can't do math. I never want to do math. I made the awful mistake of spending the past year trying to help her do math. That was a disaster that only resulted in tears. But really, I think what appealed to me when we made that switch was it just seemed so entirely logical that the reason she was struggling was because there were things in third and fourth grade she never mastered. And I really appreciated the compounding nature of that gap. Just made sense. It really clicked. And so it wasn't a big leap of faith to say, oh, okay, yeah. And I feel very fortunate that just as you predicted, by the end of eighth grade, I mean, she was acing math. And that has continued all through high school. She did go back to public high school. I think that's probably something you do encounter is there are kids that ultimately just want to Be back in the big public high school. They want to play sports in the public high school. They want to be, you know, and of course, she's at a high school with a billion kids and she's very happy there. But I don't think there's a chance, I don't think there's a snowball chance in hell she would be doing as well as she is if not for the fact that she had that two year sabbatical to Alpha where she really got to academically create a solid foundation. And I will share one last anecdote here, which is at her eighth grade graduation, she was in tears, saying goodbye to her guides. To your point, think of what the impact of those guides were on her life. She loved those people. It's not that she doesn't like her teachers in high school, but she doesn't have that kind of relationship with them.

Joe Limont (101:20)

Right. I came in actually right then, and Andy M. Who runs our academics since she brought her up, wants to give her a call out because she spent hours with him going through lessons, helping figure out why is this not working or what is it? And one of the things, when you're starting these new schools, you need this concept of a founding family. Your family was one of the most important. And your support, you got it. But your daughter, Andy wanted to say thank you to her because she did go above and beyond where our lessons and all this learning science in this closed loop, he's like, I'm way better because of the feedback and the time she spent with us. It is transformative to kids. And to your point of high school, if you want to be the quarterback on the Westlake team and run track, we don't have those in our high school. And so we can get you prepared. We say our middle school prepares kids for any high school. So all our kids in middle school can get their pick of high school that they want to go. And some want Alpha, you know, Alpha High, which is that. But some want the traditional play. But we hopefully have equipped them where they know they're a self driven learner and can do it on their own.

Peter Attia (102:29)

Yeah. I'll tell you maybe the last story I'll share, Joe, which is no surprise to you, is it really doesn't matter what corner, and I mean this literally what corner of this planet I am standing on, when education comes up, your name always comes up. And these are people who don't know that I know you. They don't know that we are friends. I will be literally on the opposite side of this planet. And if I'm talking with anybody about education, it's like, what do you know about AI and education? Have you heard of this guy Joe Limon at Alpha? And it comes up so often, which tells me that it is getting out there. This is no longer just that little niche school downtown Austin. I mean, it's hard to believe what has happened in five years. It went from one building, one place to how many now.

Joe Limont (103:13)

We opened 12 campuses. This will be a 25 Alpha campuses. We also have 25 non Alpha campuses where back to lower price points. We have campuses open where it's charter so it's free for kids. We have ones where it's $5,000 pay for the parents, $500 a month, some at 20,000. So we're trying to figure out back to innovating. We're like, what are the right price points and everything? But yes, we expect 12 months from now there to be hundreds and hundreds of schools that use this model. The demand for the sports academy is through the roof. And we think that's going to explode for sure.

Peter Attia (103:49)

Well, Joe, I appreciate you taking your time to come out today, but of course, more than anything, I just appreciate what you're doing. And again, I know this is not something that necessarily fits into what we talk about on this podcast, but again, I don't think you can care about medicine, science, health, and not care about the foundation upon which it's built. And it all starts with education. So you're working on such an important problem.

Joe Limont (104:09)

And if there's one last thing I can do, since I've had a great career, obviously before this and three years ago moved to education, if there's other people out there and one of the things, if you're listening to this and you're excited, part of my job is let's go get more talent into education. And I can tell you the last three years have been awesome. And my next 20 years is going to be better than my last 20 years. If I can convince you to come on in the water, what's the best way for.

Peter Attia (104:34)

Because I guarantee you there's a million people listening to us. A non 0 number of them are going to want to reach out to you. What's the best way to get a.

Joe Limont (104:40)

Hold of you, literally my email, which is Joe Lemont, Alpha School. Send it to me. I am overloaded. Ray, to your point, the hype has gotten very high about Alpha.

Peter Attia (104:50)

What could someone who wants to get your attention put in the subject line? Heard you on the Drive podcast or something.

Joe Limont (104:55)

I heard you on the Drive podcast and we're looking for all sorts of people.

Peter Attia (104:59)

One, you want product people, you want engineers, you want.

Joe Limont (105:02)

Everybody wants to come in. We have to go build AIs back to expansion. We need entrepreneurs where GT school needs 500 schools. We need entrepreneurs who are going to go expand it like it's a Chipotle chain. We need AI guys going out Silicon Valley where current chatbots aren't good. We have to make the LLMs better. We need educators, people who are like, okay, I want to do this new thing. If you're one of the learning scientists that we don't have on our team, come do it. We're going to need a lot of capital as well to expand this philanthropy. Right? It's. We need to be giving scholarships. We're funding a lot of it, but we need to make this available to everybody. It's your problem. It can't just be for the elite. It's gotta be for a billion kids. So education touches everything. And if you're just in where you're like that description of what they're building, I'm in. Then come aboard because it's awesome.

Peter Attia (105:53)

Joe LimontAlpha School. Okay, we'll put that in the show notes just so that people can click directly on it. Joe, thanks again.

Joe Limont (105:59)

Thank you very much. This is great.

Peter Attia (106:02)

Thank you for listening to this week's episode of the Drive. Head over to peterattiamd.com shownotes if you want to dig deeper into this episode, you can also find me on YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, all with the handle Peteratti MD. You can also leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast player you use. This podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing or other professional healthcare services, including the giving of medical advice. No doctor patient relationship is formed. The use of this information and the materials linked to this podcast is at the user's own risk. The content on this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice from any medical condition they have, and they should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. Finally, I take all conflicts of interest very seriously. For all of my disclosures and the companies I invest in or Advise, please visit PeterAttiaMD.com about where I keep an up to date and active list of all disclosures.