The PAPERs Podcast

Episode Host: Lara Varpio.

Episode 79 transcript. Enjoy PapersPodcast as a versatile learning resource the way you prefer- read, translate, and explore!

---

Episode article

Anderson, H. L. K., Govaerts, M., Abdulla, L., Balmer, D. F., Busari, J. O., & West, D. C. (2024). “Clarifying and expanding equity in assessment by considering three orientations: Fairness, inclusion and justice”. Medical Education, Advance online publication.

Episode notes

In this episode, Lara explores a paper that redefines the conversation about equity in assessment. The authors present three distinct orientations—fairness, inclusion, and justice—each offering unique perspectives on what equity in assessment entails and how it can be achieved. By examining these orientations, we uncover how the language and approach we use shape the goals we pursue and the strategies we implement in education.

---

Background

Equity in assessment is an important topic that is increasingly being recognized in health professions education’s assessment circles. But equity in assessment means different things from different perspectives. The metaphor the authors use is of a mountainous landscape—where you stand on that landscape really changes the way you see it. The way you see the topic of equity in assessment makes a significant difference in terms of what you see as the aim of your efforts and what you consider to be appropriate actions to achieve those aims.

Purpose

The article introduces three lenses for understanding equity in assessment:

1. Fairness
2. Inclusion
3. Justice

---

---

Focus: Addressing historical, cultural, social, and political inequities embedded in assessment systems.

• Advantages:
  • Deeply transformative; focuses on rebuilding systems with marginalized groups leading the process.
• Disadvantages:
  • Requires significant time, skill, and effort.
  • Demands engagement with broader societal systems beyond education.

This orientation asserts that assessment is foundational to a historical, cultural, social, and political problem that is perpetuated in our educational systems. Therefore, equity needs more than just psychometric considerations or institutional strategies. Instead, a justice orientation demands that we critique assessment paradigms, constructs, and practices from the point of view of marginalized groups.

It aims to dismantle assessment systems and then rebuild them, having users—especially minoritized individuals—co-lead and co-control the redesign process.

There are many educators and researchers in the education field who have a lot of knowledge about how to navigate this work.

This work takes a lot of time and a lot of skill. Deconstructing the current assessment paradigms and creating a more just one is not a simple task—i.e., it requires grappling with social, cultural, and political systems that exist outside of education contexts.

---

Conclusions

The authors propose three actionable strategies to advance equity in assessment:

1. Create clarity about the orientation of your efforts. This has impact on the methods you use, the outcomes to expect, and the people to involve in the process.
2. Be intentional when choosing an orientation. The authors recognize that using an orientation means that you also have to deal with the limitations, tensions, and assumptions of that orientation
3. Expand your orientations. We use a fairness orientation often, but that orientation leaves a LOT of problems with equity still in place.

---

Transcript of Episode 79

This transcript is made by an autogenerated text tool and some manual editing by the Papers Podcast team. Read more under “Acknowledgment”.

Jason Frank, Lara Varpio, Linda Snell, Jonathan Sherbino.

Start

[music]

Jonathan Sherbino
Welcome back to the Papers Podcast where the number you need to listen is one. We are all here, we’re heavily caffeinated, we have lots of feelings. Jason, how are you feeling today?

Jason Frank
I’m feeling great. We’re a bit punchy. I just want to flag that for everybody.

Jonathan Sherbino
You’ve been drinking the yerba mate I’ve been recommending to you?

Jason Frank
No, I’ve been waiting for it to come in the mail. Come on.

Jonathan Sherbino
That’s it. If you’re a listener, if you don’t drink yerba mate, I don’t even know who you are to me.

Lara Varpio
What’s a yerba mate? You don’t know me then, so what is it?

Linda Snell
You have to go down to Argentina where everybody’s got their little yerba thing and a straw in their hands.

Jonathan Sherbino
I know.

Linda Snell
And yours is coming from Argentina in the mail, I assume, Jason.

Jonathan Sherbino
It’s a national drink of Argentina and its high, high caffeine concentration.

Jason Frank
I’m all about that.

Jonathan Sherbino
Which is right up my alley.

Jason Frank
Yeah.

Jonathan Sherbino
Linda, how are you today? How are you feeling?

Linda Snell
I’m fine even without the yerba mate. Muchas gracias.

Jonathan Sherbino
Oh, wow. All right.

Jason Frank
Wow.

Yeah.

Jonathan Sherbino
All right, Lara. You’re going to make us feel all the feelings on this article.
Maybe you should give us a little bit of a preview of where we’re going here.

Lara Varpio
Yeah. So, this is a bit of an intense paper. And friends, I know we often talk about who’s got the paper of the years and we all try to pick our faves and those sorts of things, but honestly, today, the paper I’ve selected might be the most important paper I’ve picked this year.

It’s entitled Clarifying and Expanding Diversity and Equity in Assessment by Considering Three Orientations, Fairness, Inclusion, Justice. And it’s by a team of authors that we all know. And the first author is Hannah Kakara Anderson with Marianne Gouwerts and Doreen Balmer and Jamie Basari and Dan West and Leila Abdullah.

It’s a great team of authors who have spent what is obviously an intense amount of time thinking about equity, diversity and inclusion. Now, I’m willing to bet that this is a topic that has been worked on in your context. Equity and assessment is a major issue.

We’re all trying to do better on it. So, I thought I’d start by asking you how at your institution, how are you working on implementing equitable assessments? Let’s go Jason, Linda, then Jon.

Jason Frank
All right. So, I’m going to talk about my institution. You know, my institution definitely has taken a number of steps to do better in EDI.

And I’m not sure we always explicitly connect EDI with assessment. It’s usually under some sort of quality rubric. But they’ve definitely done a whole bunch of things.

So, what you’ll see if you look at my ecosystem is you’ll see that assessment of learners for selection committees, that’s admission, program directors and competence committee chairs, everybody who’s doing assessment has to do EDI training. They all have to do unconscious bias training. And some of them have to do it every single year.

That’s just the rules of our institution. It’s required. You’ll see that there are EDI committees and reps at the impact.

They get to have input on every aspect of teaching, learning and assessment. We’ve adopted programmatic assessment, which speaks to one aspect of equity. And we’ve adopted a firm commitment, at least in my department, to individualize learner pathways.

So, we tailor training because we believe fundamentally that every learner who arrives there has what it takes to be competent. And not everybody travels in the same path. So, those are some of the things we’re doing.

Linda Snell
So, I think it’s pretty similar in my institution. I’ll give you a couple of particular examples, though. Differently abled people can ask for accommodation.

Somebody who’s dyslexic can ask for accommodation on exams, for example. It gets a little bit more problematic in the clinical setting. I recently had a student who, on a clinical rotation in medicine in patients, was supposed to leave by 4 p.m. on a busy clinical service. So, this person missed handover. They couldn’t do calls. And that led to some challenges in how we were going to assess this person.

So, there’s the two sides of it that we’re trying to put together. Jon?

Jonathan Sherbino
I think our institutions are fairly similar. We have similar approaches to selection. We have a substantive amount of learner accommodation.

What is interesting to me is that there’s an assumption in our health professions programs is that our graduates are going to successfully navigate the curriculum and go into practice. And where we have issues, where we devote a lot of resources are those very rare candidates that are not on a trajectory for successful convocation from a program. And so, we devote a significant amount of processes there.

But what I don’t see happening inside the system, either at an orientation of the system or of the individual, and you’re going to give us different language around that, Laura, and I don’t want to steal the punchline of your article yet, is in the formative practice that we have, we’re assuming a kind of a homogenous process. So, the feedback that we’re giving to you in the system that we have for you, for all that formative educational effect from our assessments, assume a one-size-fits-all. We have not yet looked at the system to be adaptive and or to be responsive in a unique way.

We imagine that the feedback is unique to the individual, and we’re resting heavily on our teachers to provide some types of adaptability. But the system itself is not facilitating that. And so, I think that’s the next place we need to go.

Lara Varpio
So, what’s really interesting about this phenomenon when we think about equity and assessment and listening to your stories about similarities and differences, this is really an area of topic, a topic in medical education where it depends on where you stand is how you see the field. And depending on what premises you put in the foreground, other things get backgrounded and other things become some items and ways of practicing and ideas become the norm, the right, the anticipated. And other ideas that are equally valid get pushed to the side.

And that’s exactly what this manuscript presents to us today. So, the authors provide three lenses to think about equity and assessment using the framework created by Lucy et al. that considers both a process and the outcomes of equity.

So, the authors use this idea of process and outcomes. On the process side is all about assessment, how it’s done, the design, the context, the use. And these are parts of equity, the inherent equity, the design of the assessment tool, equity of the context in which the assessments are administered, and equity in the way assessments and assessment data are used.

So, that’s the process side. On the outcome side is all about the impacts of assessment systems, things like decision making based on assessment data, career trajectories, wellness, professional and academic development. That’s the impact side, the outcome side.

So, the authors use this process and outcome side to talk about three different lenses to think about equity and assessment. And those three are fairness and assessment. And then they also talk about assessment for inclusion.

And then they talk about justice-oriented assessment. Now, listeners, what we’ve done in preparation for this is I’ve asked each of my, I’ve assigned each of the co-hosts one of the areas to discuss. We’re going to make a, I’ve asked them to have a little bit of a feasibility comment about how feasible this is for their space.

So, I’m going to present each of these. And then we’re going to have a little comment about feasibility for each. So, let’s start with fairness-oriented assessment.

This orientation works from the premise that a set of values should guide assessment and that fairness is one of those values, maybe the most important. Given that orientation, assessment systems should provide learners with equal and appropriate opportunities to be assessed with unbiased assessment. So, this orientation says that unfairness can creep into our assessments via several factors, things like interpersonal bias in the assessment environment, biased measurements.

So, to ensure equity using a fairness orientation, scholars typically rely on psychometric measures to measure construct irrelevant variance. Isn’t that a beautiful phrase? Construct irrelevance variance.

Don’t worry, I didn’t know what it meant either. I looked it up. It refers to the variability in quantitative or qualitative assessment data due to extraneous factors that are not related to the construct being assessed.

So, the advantages of this orientation. There are several. And there are established organizational models and frameworks for identifying factors and forces that contribute to unfairness.

And there are ways of mitigating unfairness that have been published. So, there’s an evidence base on this. But, of course, if there are advantages, there are also disadvantages.

And, well, typically educators and leaders bear the responsibility of monitoring and improving assessment. So, this means that they bear the responsibility of ensuring fairness, which means that, well, they might see some problems. They’re probably not seeing all the problems and likely not seeing the problems, for instance, that learners might see.

So, while you make assessment systems more psychometrically sound, the systems themselves can still have forces and factors that are unequal and unfair. So, Jason, what do you think of this fairness orientation? How feasible is it?

What are you thinking?

Jason Frank
Okay. So, fairness is the one that’s probably the most common. I would say most institutions in the world say they do this.

And they’ll probably have a couple of elements that they can go to. It’s also one that can absolutely fail if you do it superficially. So, here’s kind of my take on it.

The fairness approach to assessment equity is the one where you tune your system, not blow it up and rebuild it. So, you can immediately see some pros and cons with it. Fairness is ensuring that every learner has all similar opportunities.

So, I’ve seen systems where I always wondered how the assessment system works when the learners don’t even get the same experiences. And on the other side, that when they do have opportunities to be assessed, they are, it’s unbiased. So, which is usually broken down by most groups as we have a quality instruments to use.

We make intentional decisions about what is assessed. We use psychometrics to improve the value of the assessment. This is getting back to where the variance comes from.

Or we have a programmatic approach. We make blueprints and we synthesize things. We use good practices to try and make better decisions.

And then the last ingredient is usually something like assessor training. So, that you either decrease the bias of assessors or you take people out of the system because they have evidence of being biased or not being helpful. So, those are the usual things.

The pushback you’ll get around the world is that’s a lot of work. So, people cut corners. And also, there is this little thread that you get encounter every now and then where fairness equals not based on merit.

And that’s something all of us have to be careful about.

Lara Varpio
Thanks for that, Jason. Okay. So, this takes us to the second lens and this is assessment for inclusion.

All right. So, assessment for inclusion starts with the premise that all learners have the right to appropriate individualized education that supports their learning and growth. Fine.

It prioritizes the inclusion of learners in assessment and it prioritizes that participation, right? So, it aims to minimize discriminatory practices and it argues to create adaptable supports for learners so that they can demonstrate their abilities in their assessments. So, a typical approach for addressing inequities using an assessment for inclusion lens is to make adaptations to an assessment by accommodations.

So, making, for instance, a sign language interpreter available for deaf students, right? So, advantages of assessment for inclusion. It’s about empowerment.

The goal is to create a system that accommodates a diversity of learners. It often uses a co-design process where the learners and the faculty and the users collaborate to identify where the barriers are to learning and assessment. But disadvantages, well, it risks imposing, I should say, it risks imposing a minority tax on those who do the work of representing learners’ voices in the co-design process, right?

So, somebody has to do that work. Somebody needs to volunteer. And it can raise questions about fairness for learners who don’t get accommodations.

Why don’t they get more time? So, pros and cons. Linda, I’m really interested.

What do you think about assessment for inclusion?

Linda Snell
So, if I look at the feasibility, I think that this may work and probably does work for more formal assessment, you know, for written exams, et cetera. It is way more challenging in my environment, in the clinical environment. Why?

Because we can’t change the number of people who are coming into our emergency room or on our wards. Yeah, sure. We can assign fewer patients to somebody who needs some sort of accommodation.

But it gets to be the law of diminishing returns because the assessment becomes less authentic. If I were to look at the process variables, intrinsic equity, that’s the actual tools itself, we may be able to adjust that. What we probably cannot adjust is the contextual equity because, as I say, the clinical setting is the clinical setting.

Instrumental equity, equity in the way the data is used, yeah, that’s something, for instance, like a competence committee. That could be adapted. But it actually gets then to the, what’s it called, the Pareto principle where, you know, the vast majority of time is spent working on a much smaller number of individuals to make sure that this equity happens.

And then you get into resource use and all of that. So, feasibility means attention to all of these process variables, some of which we have no control over. So, it becomes a bit less feasible.

Lara Varpio
Thanks, Linda. All right. So, our last lens is called justice-oriented assessment.

So, this orientation, it asserts that assessment is foundationally a historical, cultural, social, and political problem and that it is perpetuated in our educational system. Now, if you take that premise then, equity means more than just psychometric considerations or institutional strategies. Instead, a justice orientation demands that we critique the assessment paradigm, the constructs, the practices, and we have to do that critique from the point of view of marginalized and minoritized groups.

So, justice-oriented assessment, it aims to dismantle assessment systems and then rebuild them, having users, especially minoritized individuals, co-lead and co-control the redesign process to address these historical, cultural, social, and political problems. Now, it has huge advantages. The authors say that there are many educators and researchers in the education field doing this kind of work and there’s a lot of knowledge about it that’s available to navigate or to help someone navigate this work.

But there’s a big disadvantage. This is going to take a lot of time and a lot of skill to go about deconstructing a current assessment paradigm and creating another one, a new one that is just. So, you’re grappling with social, cultural, political systems and often those can exist outside the educational system but they shape the educational system.

So, how do you go about that dismantling and rebuilding in a just way? So, Jon, I’m interested in your feasibility comment because the justice-oriented assessment speaks to me, but is it feasible?

Jonathan Sherbino
Whew, the answer is it’s hard. It’s hard in that this approach does not align with let’s tinker at the edges. This approach does not align with let’s bolt something onto the side.

This approach requires us to say, okay, let’s unpack all of the assumptions, socially, culturally, and more that are at the foundation of how our system is standing on top. So, we have to go right down to the basics of whose values and whose values have not been included here, whose knowledge, what knowledge has been prioritized and what is not. I’ll give you a very concrete example, the MCAT.

So, the MCAT, if you’re not a physician or if you’re not within North America, the MCAT is a very expensive, very high stakes knowledge exam that there’s lots of evidence to show that it disadvantages a number of equity-deserving groups in medicine because there are competencies around how to navigate the management of time, the types of questions, the stems, the context. All of that is written from the context of a dominant group within medicine. And so, the MCAT is heavily critiqued for that.

And so, a justice-orientation to assessment wouldn’t say, and we’ll add a couple of questions to the end of the MCAT, or we’ll go from a four-point MCQ down to a two-point. That’s insufficient. You have to go back to whose values, what counts, whose knowledge.

But it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It just means it needs a commitment to, while simultaneously running curricula, simultaneously training professions, that there will be a true attention to, all right, let’s start from the beginning, and let’s do it in a co-construction way with learners and with groups that have been underrepresented in medicine. And there’s principles here, and I don’t think we have the time to get deeply into it, but it needs to come from principles of restorative justice.

What are the imbalances that we need to rebalance? It needs to be trauma-informed. What’s the context from which these equity-deserving groups have come from?

How do we not further traumatize them with the process or further traumatize them with the system? How do we understand the impact historically of what that has meant to these underrepresented groups in medicine? And how do we attend to that moving forward?

We can’t just say, okay, and stop from today forward. It’s a new day. It’s not a new day.

That epigenetic effect, that cultural effect, that social effect carries forward, carries forward for generations. And so the punchline is hard, but it doesn’t mean it’s undoable. And more importantly, it doesn’t mean that it is unworthy of doing.

In fact, it probably is fundamental if we want to make sure that our health profession education systems survive, survive in a meaningful way, and that we don’t end up with a product that is derived from values that we’ve never questioned or we’ve never unpacked.

Jason Frank
Can I just add a small comment? I think there are people around the world who are trying to do some of these things that we’ve started. We talked about so far from this paper.

I think we’ve moved in a generation, we’ve moved away from a single preceptor decides your career. I think we’ve introduced bias training, as I mentioned before. I think we’ve introduced systematic assessment.

So programs of assessment, blueprints, competence committees that are trained. There’s a whole bunch of things that we’ve done to try and make systems better and have more flexible training paths. All of that, I think, speaks to, like, steps towards some of these concepts.

Jonathan Sherbino
I would agree with you, Jason. I think, though, we’re at the awareness stage right now. So I think about emergency medicine, my own discipline, there’s been a ton of literature that shows the gendered disparities around the letters of recommendation, around direct observations, around how all these assessments are constructed.

We’re at the awareness phase. I am looking very forward to colleagues that will move us into the, OK, now let’s do something phase. And so I think that’s where I see at least emergency medicine education being at.

We have an awareness, but we’re still a ways from achieving that justice-oriented framework for our assessment systems.

Lara Varpio
So this paper is so important, I think, because it provides us three different ways of understanding the phenomenon and what it even means to move forward, right? Because equity and assessment, as this paper points out, depending on where you stand, you can work on it in different ways. You can drive towards different end results.

And they provide three very different ways of thinking about it. And they talk about it in terms of process and in terms of outcomes. So I think this paper is the next most, quite honestly, perhaps, like I said, the most important paper I’ve read this year, because it is helping us take the next step in a really important and significant way on a really challenging paper now or a really challenging concept.

Now, because there’s one last piece I just want to emphasize before we close, because the authors give us some next steps. And they just want to talk about to bring equity and assessment into reality, they encourage us to do three things. Number one is to have some clarity.

What is your orientation? What orientation is informing your efforts? And this has impact on the methods you use, on the outcomes you expect, and the people involved in the process.

So that’s number one. Be clear. Have an orientation that is intentional.

Second, be intentional when choosing this orientation. The authors recognize that using an orientation means that you have to deal with the limitations, with the tensions, and with the assumptions that are part of that orientation. So you have to be really quite intentional about why you’re picking the one you have.

And finally, their third step is they call for expansion of orientations. We often use fairness orientation, but it’s just one starting point. And that orientation leaves a lot to be desired.

So we need to move beyond whatever orientation we currently have. There’s at least two other ones if you’re landing in this paper anywhere. And those other ones have strengths and have orientations that are worth considering and working on.

So while you might choose one orientation to start with, don’t limit yourself. Don’t stop there. Know that there’s more to do in other ways.

So that’s my impression of this paper. I think it’s vitally important, incredibly useful. I’m really looking forward to your thoughts and comments.

So if I’m going to open up to you for any final thoughts or additional reflections you want to offer, let’s go Linda, Jason, then Jon.

Linda Snell
So just a couple of comments. First of all, generally speaking, this section of medical education is really stimulating. That’s what it’s supposed to do.

It’s where outside, and I use that in quotation mark content, is brought into medical education. I can’t say that EDI is outside med ed, but the cross-cutting edge is something that always stimulates my thoughts. The second comment is when a paper starts with a quotation from Paolo Freire, you know it’s going to be interesting.

So both of those things already, even before I got to the paper, got me thinking, I’m going to like this. I’m going to save my other comments for when we talk about its impact.

Jason Frank
So my highest compliment for this paper is that it changed my thinking. It gives you another way of thinking about assessment. Like none of these concepts are new, but I just love how they organized it.

And my second highest compliment for this paper is that you can use this paper. You can bring this back to whatever assessment system you’re working in, and you can try on these three lenses and see how you’re doing and see what the next generation version of that assessment might be. So I actually, I really like this paper.

I’m glad you chose it.

Jonathan Sherbino
I’d amplify what Linda suggested, which is the section in medical education, the journal called cross-cutting edge is where these big ideas go, and hats off to that journal and to others that have these spaces for us to ask the big questions and to synthesize the literature and say, here’s the consequence and here’s what’s next. I think that’s a real strength of our field. The other two parts is very pragmatically is figure one and table one are both worth pulling the manuscript and looking at figure one is a Venn diagram.

And we all know how we feel about Venn diagrams. I hate them. Except for this one, I really like because it uses very discreet, very descriptive and very accessible language to differentiate between the three ideas and where they intersect uniquely and where they stand alone, rather than just being a vague, ah, there’s, there’s an intersection, which is usually what involves some hand waving.

They don’t do that here. And then table one says, okay, we’re talking in abstract ideas. Now let’s give you some concrete examples about how to put this to work.

And it doesn’t overwhelm, but it does go you from making you feel, I feel paralyzed. We need to do better. What should we do?

Oh, table one says, here’s something you could do. It doesn’t look that big of a heavy lift. There’s an actual way forward.

It doesn’t solve it. It’s not patronizing by saying this heavy, complex problem, it has a three-step solution, but it does say, here’s how we can get some inertia and momentum. Because the question of assessment is a complex one.

It doesn’t have a linear solution. It probably needs some work, re-evaluation, see how things respond or the unintended consequences, and then find the next bit of work, repeat it in an iterative fashion, because that’s the only way that you start to grapple with these complex problems.

Lara Varpio
So friends, ah, before we go to asking about, ah, how you’re going to rate this paper in terms of its impact and, you know, what impact it had for you, I just want to underscore the, for me, this paper is so important. And I want to highlight the name Hannah Anderson. And that’s the name of the first author.

Hannah is doing her PhD right now looking at questions about equity and assessment. And this is one of her thesis papers. And the way Hannah is thinking about it and talking about it is changing the way I’m thinking about it and acting on it because she’s just so clear and so thoughtful and so rich.

So remember that name. Keep an eye out for it. She’s going to change the face of assessment as we understand it in medical education.

And so with that, we are now going to go to our new and less dubious round of comments in closing because it’s not a rating or a number. You can use feelings, emojis, random objects. Well, you can.

You don’t have to. So I’m going to ask, are you going to ask what impact this paper had for you? Let’s go, Jon, Linda, Jason.

Jonathan Sherbino
I do this to bug you, but I also know it’ll make you feel smug. Five. For the reasons stated.

Linda Snell
It does make me feel smug.

Lara Varpio
Thank you. Linda.

Linda Snell
I think this is a really important paper and does have impact. I won’t repeat what we’ve talked about except to say that because I do like pictures and diagrams, and I think visually, I think the two figures are really, really helpful.

And to give you a very simple and straightforward approach to looking at your own assessments and assessment systems. So this is very high on the impact scale, whatever number you want to give that.

Jason Frank
Whoa. Pure narrative. What the hell?

Lara Varpio
Love it.

Jason Frank
Crazy. So I’m going to give this a four since I’m using the scale properly.

And this is about how it’ll be used in my practice. So super, super helpful. As I said before, help me see things differently.

I can apply this. The only thing that could have made this paper better would be something more concrete for assessment systems. Like give me examples of things, practices that people could use.

And that would have made the paper even, even sweeter. So I really thought this was a great paper.

Linda Snell
You know, although most of these papers are a little bit more theoretical in this particular section of medical education, it’s here, here is something that you can then apply rather than here is how to apply.

Lara Varpio
So I’m going to give this paper a 14 because that’s what it deserves. Now with that being said, yay numbers, not on your scale there. So with all of that said, friends, we thank you so much for taking the time to listen to us banter and bandy about different ideas about different papers.

We’re always so happy to hear from you. You can find us on the internet at PapersPodcast.com. And if you want to reach us, you can write to us at ThePapersPodcast at gmail.com.

And with that, Ben, I know I got it right.

Jonathan Sherbino
Hooray.

Lara Varpio
So then friends, have a great rest of your day and I’ll talk to you later.

Bye bye.

Jonathan Sherbino
Thanks for listening.

Jason Frank
Take care, everybody.

Jonathan Sherbino
[mimicking Jason] Take care, everybody.

Lara Varpio
All right, friend.

Jason Frank
Thanks, Larry, for staying.

Lara Varpio
Anytime. Gotta go. Bye.

Jason Frank
Okay. Bye. You’ve been listening to The Papers Podcast.

Acknowledgment

This transcript was generated using machine transcription technology, followed by manual editing for accuracy and clarity. While we strive for precision, there may be minor discrepancies between the spoken content and the text. We appreciate your understanding and encourage you to refer to the original podcast for the most accurate context.